Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic RSFSR

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)


The RSFSR was formed on Oct. 25 (Nov. 7), 1917. It borders Norway and Finland on the northwest, Poland on the west, and China, the Mongolian People’s Republic, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea on the southeast. It also borders on a number of Union republics of the USSR, including the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Byelorussian SSR’s in the west, the Ukrainian SSR in the southwest, and the Georgian, Azerbaijan, and Kazakh SSR’s in the south. In addition, the RSFSR borders on the Caspian Sea and the seas of the Arctic Ocean (Barents, White, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi seas), the Pacific Ocean (Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and Sea of Japan), and—to a lesser extent—the Atlantic Ocean (Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Sea of Azov).

The RSFSR ranks first among the Union republics of the USSR in area, population, and economic development. It accounts for three-fourths of the territory of the country, more than half of the population, two-thirds of the industrial output, and roughly half of the agricultural output. Its area is 17,075,400 sq km, and the population is 133,741,000 (Jan. 1, 1975). The capital is the city of Moscow.

The RSFSR includes 16 autonomous republics, five autonomous oblasts, six krais, 49 oblasts, and ten autonomous okrugs. The autonomous republics are the Bashkir ASSR, Buriat ASSR, Dagestan ASSR, Kabarda-Balkar ASSR, Kalmyk ASSR, Karelian ASSR, Komi ASSR, Mari ASSR, Mordovian ASSR, Severnaia Osetiia ASSR, Tatar ASSR, Tuva ASSR, Udmurt ASSR, Chechen-Ingush ASSR, Chuvash ASSR, and Yakut ASSR. The autonomous oblasts are the Adygei AO, Gorno-Altai AO, Jewish AO, Karachai-Cherkess AO, and Khakass AO. The republic’s autonomous okrugs are the Aga-Buriat AOk, Komi-Permiak AOk, Koriak AOk, Nenets AOk, Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) AOk, Ust’-Orda Buriat AOk, Khanty-Mansi AOk, Chukchi AOk, Evenki AOk, and Yamal-Nenets AOk.

The RSFSR is divided into ten economic regions: Northwestern, Central, Volga-Viatka, Central Chernozem, Volga, Northern Caucasus, Ural, Western Siberian, Eastern Siberian, and Far East (see Table 1).

The RSFSR is a socialist state of workers and peasants. A Union soviet socialist republic, it is part of the USSR. The present constitution of the RSFSR was ratified by the Extraordinary Seventeenth All-Russian Congress of Soviets on Jan. 21, 1937. A sovereign soviet socialist state, the RSFSR is one of the 15 Union republics that voluntarily united with other soviet republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Outside the spheres listed in article 73 of the Constitution of the USSR, the RSFSR exercises authority on its territory independently, fully keeping its sovereign rights. Among these rights are the right to withdraw from the USSR, the right to enter into direct relations with foreign states, the right to conclude treaties with foreign states and exchange diplomatic and consular representatives, and the right to have republic military organizations. The territory of the RSFSR cannot be changed without the republic’s consent. The RSFSR is a federated state with respect to its organization. The federal character of the Russian republic was established by the Declaration of the Rights of the Working

Table 1. Territory, population, and administrative-territorial divisions of the RSFSR (as of Jan. 1, 1975)
 Territory (sq km)PopulationRaionsCitiesUrban-type settlements
1Part of the Baltic Economic Region
RSFSR .......................17,075,400133,741,0001,7759861,978
Northwestern Region ..............1,662,80012,749,000138115235
 Arkhangel’sk Oblast .............587,4001,430,000191137
  Nenets Autonomous Okrug .......176,70040,00011
 Leningrad Oblast ...............85,9005,806,000163555
 Murmansk Oblast...............144,900905,00041123
 Novgorod Oblast ...............55,300718,000211019
 Pskov Oblast..................55,300857,000241411
 Vologda Oblast ................145,7001,284,000261511
 Karelian ASSR.................172,400726,000151242
 Komi ASSR...................415,9001,023,00013737
Central Region ..................485,10028,255,000286236364
 Briansk Oblast.................34,9001,527,000231528
 Ivanovo Oblast.................23,9001,319,000191729
 Kalinin Oblast .................84,1001,684,000362228
 Kaluga Oblast .................29,900987,000231714
 Kostroma Oblast................60,100806,000241118
 Moscow Oblast ................47,00013,708,000397182
 Orel Oblast ...................24,700890,00019712
 Riazan’ Oblast.................39,6001,369,000241129
 Smolensk Oblast ...............49,8001,087,000231418
 Tula Oblast...................25,7001,932,000232150
 Vladimir Oblast.................29,0001,545,000162035
 Yaroslavl Oblast................36,4001,401,000171021
Volga-Viatka Region...............263,3008,261,00014264159
 Gorky Oblast..................74,8003,652,000472566
 Kirov Oblast ..................120,8001,661,000391955
 Chuvash ASSR.................18,3001,263,0002196
 Mari ASSR ...................23,200694,00014415
 Mordovian ASSR ...............26,200991,00021717
Central Chernozem Region ..........167,7007,787,0001134874
 Belgorod Oblast................27,1001,258,00018915
 Kursk Oblast ..................29,8001,411,00025921
 Lipetsk Oblast .................24,1001,209,0001884
 Tambov Oblast.................34,3001,419,00022812
 Voronezh Oblast................52,4002,490,000301422
Volga Region ...................680,00018,960,000254102198
 Astrakhan Oblast ...............44,100904,00010414
 Kiubyshev Oblast ...............53,6003,005,000251019
 Penza Oblast.................43,2001,498,000271014
 Saratov Oblast................100,2002,505,000371730
 Ul’ianovsk Oblast ..............37,3001,229,00020629
 Volgograd Oblast..............114,1002,420,000321825
 Bashkir ASSR ................143,6003,825,000541738
 Kalmyk ASSR ................75,900275,0001235
 Tatar ASSR..................68,0003,299,000371724
Northern Caucasus Region .........355,10015,003,00018094111
 Krasnodar Krai................83,6004,687,000392728
  Adygei Autonomous Oblast ......7,600401,000616
  Karachai-Cherkess Autonomous Oblast..........14,100358,000739
 Rostov Oblast ................100,8003,992,000392234
 Chechen-Ingush ASSR ..........19,3001,137,0001454
 Dagestan ASSR ...............50,3001,539,00039814
 Kabarda-Balkar ASSR ...........12,500643,000878
 Severnaia Osetiia ASSR..........8,000584,000867
Ural Region ...............680,40015,306,000173121223
 Cheliabinsk Oblast .............87,9003,368,000242725
 Kurgan Oblast ...............71,0001,062,0002396
 Orenburg Oblast ...............124,0002,071,000341025
 Perm’ Oblast ...............160,6002,979,000372556
  Komi-Permiak Autonomous Okrug ...............32,900184,000613
 Sverdlovsk Oblast ...............194,8004,383,000304496
 Udmurt ASSR ................42,1001,443,00025615
Western Siberian Region...........2,427,20012,379,00019364149
 Altai Krai ................261,7002,643,000641031
  Gorno-Altai Autonomous Oblast ................92,600166,000813
 Kemerovo Oblast ................95,5002,918,000161944
 Novosibirsk Oblast ................178,2002,543,000301416
 Omsk Oblast ................139,7001,871,00031615
 Tomsk Oblast ................316,900824,00016312
 Tiumen’ Oblast.................1,435,2001,580,000361231
  Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug ................523,100390,0007515
  Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug ................750,300118,000722
Eastern Siberian Region ............4,122,8007,827,00014261182
 Krasnoiarsk Krai ................2,401,6003,065,000552061
  Khakass Autonomous Oblast ......61,900462,0008418
  Evenki Autonomous Okrug........767,60014,00031
  Taimyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug...........862,10042,000311
 Chita Oblast ..................431,5001,207,000281043
  Aga-Buriat National Okrug........19,00069,00033
 Irkutsk Oblast .................767,9002,452,00044
  Ust’-Orda Buriat Autonomous Okrug ...................22,300138,000281043
 Buriat ASSR ..................351,300852,00019523
 Tuva ASSR ...................170,500251,0001252
Far East Region..................6,215,9006,435,00014159278
 Khabarovsk Krai................824,6001,483,00021944
  Jewish Autonomous Oblast .......36,000187,0005212
 Amur Oblast ..................363,700869,00020830
 Kamchatka Oblast...............472,300346,00011115
  Koriak Autonomous Okrug.......301,50033,00045
 Magadan Oblast...............1,199,100426,00016451
  Chukchi Autonomous Okrug......737,700122,0008218
 Sakhalin Oblast ...............87,100653,000171935
 Yakut ASSR .................3,103,200756,00032955
Kaliningrad Oblast1 ..............15,100779,00013225

and Exploited People, which was included in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 as its first section. The RSFSR includes 16 autonomous republics, five autonomous oblasts, and ten autonomous okrugs. Russians make up the national majority group of the Russian Federation. However, the Russian people are not joined together in any separate national organization but rather are represented by the RSFSR itself.

The ASSR’s are national soviet socialist states that exercise state power on questions not under the jurisdiction of the USSR (art. 73 of the Constitution of the USSR) and the RSFSR (art. 19 of the Constitution of the RSFSR). They have their own constitutions, higher organs of power (supreme soviets), and governments (councils of ministers). Each autonomous republic is represented in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR by one of the deputy chairmen of the Presidium.

An autonomous oblast as a national state formation enjoys a certain independence in domestic affairs. Autonomous okrugs are included in the krais and oblasts as a form of state organization for the small nationalities that inhabit the Far North of the RSFSR. The existing forms of national state and administrative-territorial formations ensure free economic, political, and cultural development for the nationalities inhabiting the RSFSR.

The Russian Federation as a whole is represented by 32 deputies in the Soviet of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Each autonomous republic of the RSFSR is represented by 11 deputies, each autonomous oblast by five deputies, and each autonomous okrug by one deputy.

The highest body of state power and the sole law-making body of the RSFSR is the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, which is elected every five years on the basis of one deputy per 150,000 inhabitants. The Supreme Soviet heads the entire system of state bodies of the RSFSR, has full power in the republic, and exercises all rights given to the RSFSR by its constitution.

The Supreme Soviet elects the Presidium, which is its standing body and accountable to it for all its work. The powers of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR are defined by the constitution of the RSFSR. The Presidium calls sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, issues decrees, grants honorary titles of the RSFSR, and so on.

The Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR forms the government of the republic—the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR—the highest executive and administrative body of state authority in the republic. It issues decisions and ordinances on the basis of, and in pursuance of, the legislative acts of the USSR and the RSFSR, and of decisions and ordinances of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and organizes and verifies their execution. The Council of Ministers of the RSFSR has the right to suspend the execution of decisions and ordinances of the councils of ministers of the autonomous republics, to rescind the decisions and orders of the executive committees of Soviets of people’s deputies of krais, oblasts, and cities (that is, cities under republic jurisdiction), and of autonomous oblasts. The Council of Ministers of the RSFSR coordinates and directs the work of the union-republic and republic ministries and of state committees of the Union republic, and other bodies under its jurisdiction. Republic or Union-republic ministries of the RSFSR manage the sectors of state administration under the jurisdiction of the republic.

The local organs of state power in the krais, oblasts, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okrugs, raions, cities, settlements, and villages are the corresponding soviets of people’s deputies, which are elected by the population for 2.5-year terms.

Justice is administered by the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, the supreme courts of the autonomous republics, krai and oblast courts, the courts of the autonomous oblasts and autonomous okrugs, and people’s courts. The Supreme Court of the RSFSR, the highest judicial body in the republic, is elected by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR for a five-year term. It includes two judicial collegiums (handling civil and criminal cases), a presidium, and a plenum.

The procurator of the RSFSR, the procurators of the autonomous republics and oblasts, and the krai and oblast procurators are appointed by the procurator general of the USSR to terms of five years. The procurators of the autonomous okrugs, raions, and cities are appointed for five-year terms by the procurator of the RSFSR, with ratification by the procurator general of the USSR.

The RSFSR has its own state emblem and state flag.


Lepeshkin, A. I. (ed.) Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo. Moscow, 1971.

The RSFSR occupies a large part of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. It extends 2,500–4,000 km in a north-south direction and 9,000 km in an east-west direction. The westernmost point is on the border with Poland (19°38’ E long.), and the extreme eastern point is on Ratmanov Island in the Diomede Islands in the Bering Strait (169°02’ W long.). The extreme southern point is on the border with the Azerbaijan SSR (41° 10’ N lat.), and the northernmost point is on Rudolf Island of Franz Josef Land (81°51’N lat.).

Relief. Roughly 70 percent of the area of the RSFSR is covered by broad plains. In the west lies the East European Plain, within which the low (up to 250—400 m) Valdai, Central Russian, and Volga hills are combined with the Oka-Don, Caspian, and other lowlands. The eastern boundary of the plain is formed by the north-south ranges of the Urals, with elevations of 800–1,200 m (the highest point, Mount Narodnaia, reaches 1,895 m). To the east of the Urals stretches the Western Siberian Plain, whose flat relief over broad expanses is less contrasting than that of the East European Plain. The lowest areas of the plain, the very marshy Konda, Middle Ob’, and Barabinsk lowlands, are in the central part; elevations increase to 150—250 m along the plain’s edges.

The strongly uplifted Middle Siberian Plateau is located between the Enisei and Lena rivers. The gently rolling surface of the plateau is broken by a complex network of deep river valleys; in some places significantly higher mountain masses (Putoran Plateau, up to 1,701 m; Enisei Ridge, up to 1,104 m) rise above the plateau’s surface. In the east the plateau changes into the Central Yakut Plain, where elevations in the river valleys are 100—120 m.

Mountainous regions with extremely rugged relief and great elevations predominate in the east and, to a lesser extent, in the south. In the European RSFSR are located the northern ranges of the Greater Caucasus, which include the republic’s highest point, Mount El’brus (5,642 m). The band of mountain ranges that stretches along the border of the USSR in Southern Siberia includes the Altai (highest point Mount Belukha, 4,506 m), the Kuznetskii Alatau, the Zapadnyi Saian Mountains, the Vostochnyi Saian Mountains, the Tuva Mountains, the Baikal and Transbaikal regions, and the Stanovoi Mountains. Medium-elevation mountains (1,500–2,000 m) characterize Northeastern Siberia (Verkhoiansk Range, Cherskii Mountains—highest point, Mount Pobeda, 3,147 m; and Kolyma Highlands) and the Far East (Chukchi Highland, Koriak Mountains, and the Dzhugdzhur, Bureia, and Sikhote-Alin’ ranges). The mountains of Kamchatka (Kliuchevskaia Sopka, 4,750 m) and the Kuril Islands (Mount Alaid, 2,339 m), among which there are many active volcanoes, are located along the Pacific coast of the Far East.


Geological structure. The territory of the RSFSR encompasses a significant part of the area of the East European Platform, the entire Siberian Platform, and the folded areas of the Urals, the Western Siberian Plain, Southern Siberia, the Verkhoiano-Chukotka region, the Koriak Highland, Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, the Primor’e, and Sakhalin. The ancient platforms have a Preriphean crystalline basement, which formed from very ancient sedimentary and volcanic beds deposited on the bottom of the sea and were later subjected to folding and much metamorphism. The platforms were fused by granites many times. These processes happened over a period of more than 2 billion years and ended in the Middle Proterozoic (roughly 1.8–1.7 billion years ago).

After the Karelian folding, the surface of the basement of the Eastern European and Siberian platforms was leveled by denudation and was covered by a sedimentary mantle whose development continued until the Anthropogenic period. The folded regions that surround the ancient platforms were formed much later; until the Middle Proterozoic segments of oceanic crust covered by ocean waters were located in their place. Geosynclinal systems developed, giving rise to folded regions of different age: the Baikal folding (completed at the end of the Proterozoic), the Caledonian folding (middle of the Paleozoic), the Hercynian folding (end of the Paleozoic), and the Cimmerian folding (Mesozoic). The folded regions formed the basement of new platforms, significant areas of which were later eroded and covered by a sedimentary mantle. In the Caucasus the processes of geosynclinal development ended at the time of the Alpide folding. The Kuril and Komandor island region, the basins of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea, and the deep Kuril-Kamchatka trench still have not completed their geosynclinal development.

The folded regions are joined into belts that divide the ancient platforms or that separate the platforms from the depressions of the ocean floor: part of the Mediterranean belt (the Alpine folded region of the Caucasus and the Ciscaucasus plain), the Ural-Mongolian belt (Timan, Urals, Western Siberian Plain, the Altai, Saian Mountains, Baikal region, Transbaikalia), the Pacific belt (Verkhoiansk, Kamchatka, Koriak Highland, Kuril Islands, the islands of Sikhote-Alin’ and Sakhalin, and the sea basin and trench that separate the last three), and part of the Arctic belt (the folded region of the northern shore of the Chukchi region).


Mineral resources. Most of the mineral fuel resources of the USSR are concentrated in the RSFSR, including more than 70 percent of the worked coal reserves, more than 80 percent of the worked gas reserves, and 91 percent of the total peat reserves. The RSFSR has substantial iron ore reserves. All of the country’s apatite deposits and more than 60 percent of its potassium salt resources are located in the RSFSR. Deposits of many other useful minerals are also found in the republic. The coal basins are primarily Carboniferous, Permian, and Jurassic in age.

The most significant petroleum and gas deposits are found in Mesozoic and Tertiary beds of the Northern Caucasus, Paleozoic beds of the Volga-Ural and Ukhta-Pechora oil-gas regions, Mesozoic beds of the Western Siberian Plain, Paleozoic and Mesozoic beds in Eastern Siberia and the Yakut ASSR, and Paleogenic and Neogenic deposits on Sakhalin. Significant reserves of high-grade iron ores and ferruginous quartzites have been exploited in the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly, where iron ore deposits have been found in the metamorphosed rocks of the Precambrian basement of the Eastern European Platform. There are large reserves of iron ore in the Urals, Siberia, Karelia, and other regions.

The RSFSR is rich in ores of various nonferrous and rare metals. Significant bauxite deposits have been exploited in the Urals, and copper ore deposits have been found in the Northern Caucasus, the Central and Southern Urals, and Eastern Siberia. The deposits of high-grade cupronickel ores in the Noril’sk Ore Region in northern Krasnoiarsk Krai are of particular importance. Major deposits of copper and nickel are located on the Kola Peninsula, and deposits of lead-zinc ores have been found in the Northern Caucasus, the Altai, the lower course of the Angara River in Krasnoiarsk Krai, Transbaikalia, and the Far East. Tin deposits have been discovered in the Yakut ASSR, Magadan Oblast, and the Khabarovsk and Primor’e krais. Tungsten and molybdenum have been found in the Northern Caucasus and Eastern Siberia. The RSFSR also has deposits of antimony, mercury, gold, silver, platinum, and cobalt.

The Khibiny deposits of apatite and nepheline ores are located in Murmansk Oblast. (Other valuable minerals are found in the deposits.) Phosphorite deposits have been worked in the central European part of the RSFSR, and the Upper Kama deposit of potassium salts is located on the western slope of the Northern Urals. Deposits of phlogopite have been found on the Kola Peninsula and in the Yakut ASSR, and muscovite has been found in the Karelian ASSR and Irkutsk Oblast. Rich asbestos deposits have been worked in the Urals, the Tuva ASSR, and Eastern Siberia. Deposits of precious, semiprecious, and nonferrous ornamental stones (amethysts, garnets, rock crystal, obsidian, beryl, topaz, nephrite, rhodonite, agate, and variously colored jasper) have been found in many mountain regions of the RSFSR, particularly the Urals, the Altai, Transbaikalia, and the Kola Peninsula. These regions also have deposits of marble, granite, basalt, and many other stones used as building or decorative materials. The Yakut ASSR has diamond deposits.


Climate. A large part of the RSFSR is located in the temperate belt. The northernmost continental regions and the islands of the Arctic Ocean are in the arctic and subarctic belts, and a small sector of the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus is in the subtropical belt. The climate is almost universally continental. Its continentality rises markedly as one moves from west to east and as the effect of the Atlantic Ocean lessens. The climate in Eastern Siberia is severely continental, with the difference between mean July and January temperatures reaching 50°—65°C. The climate of the southern part of the Far East is affected by the seas of the Pacific Ocean during the summer and by the continental Asian anticyclone during the winter. It has a monsoonal climate: the winter is cold with little snow, and the summer is moderately warm and rainy. The winter is cold in the RSFSR owing to the high atmospheric pressure (in the east, the Asian anticyclone). The mean January temperatures range from 0° to – 5°C in the western European part and Ciscaucasia to – 40° or – 50°C in the eastern Yakut ASSR (minimum temperatures there reach 65° or—70°C). Relatively low atmospheric pressure predominates over most of the territory during the summer, resulting in a hot summer in the south and a relatively warm summer elsewhere in the RSFSR (with the exception of the Far North). The mean July temperature ranges from 1°C along the northern coast of Siberia to 24°–25°C on the Caspian Lowland.

The length of the frost-free period varies greatly. In the northernmost regions and on the arctic islands there is no predictable frost-free period. Near the southern boundary of the tundra there are 60 to 75 days without frost, in the steppes of Western Siberia 110 to 120 days, and in the Northern Caucasus 180 to 200 days. The sum of temperatures for the period with temperatures above 10°C is 400° to 500° on the southern boundary of the tundra zone, 3,000° to 3,500° in the steppes of Ciscaucasia, and 4,000° on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. In the arctic deserts the sum is almost negligible.

Atmospheric precipitation comes primarily from the west by means of Atlantic air masses; in the Far East it is carried from the seas of the Pacific Ocean. Precipitation is highest in the mountains of the Caucasus and Altai (up to 1,500–2,000 mm a year). It is also substantial in the forest zone of the Eastern European Plain (600–700 mm) and in the southern part of the Far East (up to 1,000 mm). The taiga regions of Yakutia and tundra and steppe regions receive considerably less precipitation (200–300 mm). The semidesert regions of the Caspian Lowland have the least amount of precipitation (120—150 mm), and the heavy evaporation rate there during the summer causes a severe drought. The snow cover lasts from 60 to 80 days in the south and from 260 to 280 days in the Far North. The greatest snow depths, reaching 70–100 cm, are found in Western Siberia and Kamchatka.

The especially severe, sharply continental climate of Siberia and the northern half of the Far East results in permafrost. Within the RSFSR permafrost covers more than 10 million sq km. The permafrost layer, which is often abundantly packed with underground ice, reaches a thickness of 200–500 m in the north and 1,500 m in the basin of the Markha River (a tributary of the Viliui).

Glaciers. There are many glaciers in the arctic and high-mountain regions. The ice sheets of the arctic islands (Novaia Zemlia, Severnaia Zemlia, and Franz Josef Land) cover an area of more than 56,000 sq km. The mountain glaciers of the northern slope of the Greater Caucasus, the Altai, Kamchatka, the Saians, and the Northeast occupy more than 3,500 sq km.

Internal waters. The RSFSR has about 120,000 rivers with lengths exceeding 10 km. Their total length exceeds 2.3 million km. Most of the rivers (Severnaia Dvina, Pechora, Ob’, Irtysh, Enisei, Lena, Indigirka, Kolyma) are part of the Arctic Basin, whose drainage area includes more than 12.8 million sq km of RSFSR territory. The mountains and plains of the Far East are drained by rivers flowing into the seas of the Pacific Ocean (Amur, Anadyr’, Penzhina, and other rivers). The Don, Kuban’, and Neva rivers empty into the Atlantic Ocean; the Volga River, which empties into the Caspian Sea, belongs to an internal drainage basin.

The total runoff of all the rivers is roughly 4,000 cu km a year. Most of the rivers are fed primarily by rain and snow. High water occurs in the spring or early summer, except in the southern part of the Far East, where it occurs in late summer. Runoff during the warm period accounts for 65–100 percent of the annual runoff. The rivers are icebound for one or two months in Krasnodar Krai and for eight months in the northern regions of Siberia.

More than 400,000 km of the river network are suitable for navigation or timber floating. The rivers are the primary source of water for cities and industrial enterprises. In many southern regions, including the Northern Caucasus, the Volga Region, and the southern part of Eastern Siberia, rivers are used for irrigation. The rivers of the RSFSR account for roughly 75 percent of the potential hydroelectric power resources of the USSR: about 320 million kW with a production capacity of as much as 2,800 billion kW-hr annually (up to 1,670 billion kW-hr are technically feasible for use). The mighty rivers of Siberia (Enisei, Lena, Angara, Ob’, and Irtysh), as well as the Amur and Volga rivers, have the most significant reserves of hydroelectric power.

The RSFSR has approximately 2 million freshwater and saltwater lakes. The largest are the Caspian Sea, Lake Baikal, Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega, and Lake Taimyr. The Rybinsk, Kuibyshev, Volgograd, Kama, Krasnoiarsk, Irkutsk, Bratsk, and other reservoirs have been created by the dams of large hydroelectric power plants.

The soils and vegetation on the plains are in latitudinal zones running from north to south. The arctic desert zone comprises the arctic islands and the coast of the Taimyr Peninsula, where shallow, primitive arctic soils form. Vegetation is meager, consisting primarily of various lichens, mosses, and a few perennial flowering plants. Vast areas of soil are found everywhere. South of the arctic desert zone lies the tundra zone, where acid tundra soils, which are usually strongly gleyed, predominate. The vegetation here is more varied. In addition to mosses and fruticose lichens (reindeer moss, Iceland moss), there are thickets of low shrubs (dwarf and underdeveloped birches, willows). The number of herbaceous species (sedge, cotton grass) and berry shrubs (cowberry, whortleberry) also increases. Typical of the transitional forest-tundra zone is an alternation of sections of unforested moss, lichen, and brush tundra with open woodlands of birch and spruce and, in Siberia, larch. The soils are weakly podzolized tundra gley or gley-taiga-permafrost soils.

Approximately 65 percent of the territory of the RSFSR is in the forest zone, which in some places east of the Enisei River is as wide as 2,000 km. In its northern half, which consists of the taiga subzone, podzols and dark-coniferous taiga of spruce and fir forests (eastern European USSR), cedar forests (from the Urals east), and pine forests predominate. East of the Enisei, where taiga-permafrost soils form, is a light-coniferous taiga composed of Siberian and dahurian larch; in the Far East the Yeddo spruce and Khingan fir predominate in the taiga. There are many marshes in the taiga subzone, especially in Western Siberia; they are primarily high oligotrophic bogs. Wooded areas frequently are also swampy.

South of the taiga, the subzone of mixed forests stretches across the East European Plain. Here the forests on soddy podzols are composed of conifers, usually with some birch and aspen; oak, maple, linden, and other broad-leaved trees are also encountered. In the southern part of the Far East the forests consist of Korean pine, Manchurian fir, Mongolian oak, hornbeam, maples, elms, Amur oak, and many other tree species. The extreme southern part of the forest zone of the East European Plain is occupied by a subzone of broad-leaved forests, primarily oak and linden.

The forest-steppe zone lying to the south is characterized by an alternation of forb meadow steppes on alkali or typical chernozems with small woods—oak forests (in the west) or small isolated groves of birch and aspen (in the east) on gray forest soils. In poorly drained places there are swampy meadows or grassy swamps. The steppe zone, which is characteristic of the southern part of the East European and Western Siberian plains, is noted for the formation of dark chestnut soils and particularly fertile chernozems, with a thick humus horizon containing 4–10 percent humus. Forb-grass and grass (feather grass, sheep’s fescue, and other cespitose grasses) steppes predominate here. Almost all the steppe has been brought into cultivation. In Eastern Siberia the steppes are confined primarily to the Minusinsk and Tuva intermontane basins and to the basins of southern Transbaikalia. Further south, in the Caspian Lowland, lie sections of the semidesert zone with light chestnut soils, brown soils, and solonchaks. The very sparse vegetation of the semidesert regions consists of wormwood, xerophilous narrow-leaved grasses, and saltworts.

In mountainous regions the soils and vegetation are particularly diverse and are in zones classified by elevation. They are most fully represented in the high mountain ranges of the Caucasus, where the chernozem forb steppes of the foothills are replaced at elevations of 600–800 m first by oak and beech forests on brown mountain forest soils and then by a zone of coniferous forests. Above the timberline (2,000–2,200 m) subalpine and alpine meadows on mountain meadow soils predominate. The peaks are virtually without vegetation, and bare rock, rock streams, and glaciers are prevalent.

The zonality in the mountains of Siberia and the Far East is less complex. Most of the area is covered by mountain taiga forests on rocky, frequently skeletal and shallow mountain podzols or on brown mountain-forest soils. Only in the highest ranges, above the mountain taiga, is there a zone of mountain tundra and alpine vegetation.

The steppe and forest-steppe zones with highly fertile chernozems, meadow chernozems, and gray forest soils make up the principal portion of agricultural land. The soddy podzols of the nonchernozem zone are also important for farming.

More than 40 percent of the territory of the RSFSR, that is, more than 700 million ha, is covered by forests. The total timber reserve is 79 billion cu m. Forests occupy particularly large areas in the taiga regions of Siberia, the Far East, and the northern European RSFSR. Coniferous forests of larch, pine, spruce, cedar, and fir are most common. There are valuable wild mushrooms, medicinal plants, industrial plants, and plants with edible berries and nuts.

The animal world. The RSFSR is entirely within the Palaearctic zoogeographical region. The distribution of animals is closely tied to geographic zones. Typical of the arctic desert and tundra zones are the arctic fox, lemming, reindeer, snowy owl, and rock ptarmigan. The forest zone, especially the taiga subzone (the primary fur-producing region), is the habitat of the elk, Eurasian brown bear, lynx, sable, fox, squirrel, Siberian chipmunk, and blue hare. In Eastern Siberia, in addition to the above-mentioned animals, the maral, musk deer, and Siberian weasel are found. The southern part of the Far East is the habitat of the Ussuri tiger, black bear, yellow-throated marten, raccoon dog, goral, and wild boar. Typical birds in the forests are the capercaillie, black grouse, hazel hen, and woodpecker. The forest-steppe and steppes zones are inhabited by small rodents, such as voles, susliks, jerboas, hamsters, and marmots, and by a number of birds, including the bustard, eagle, and the little bustard.

The most economically important animals are such furbearers as the squirrel, muskrat (acclimatized), fox, sable, and ermine. There also are valuable wild ungulates (elk, reindeer, and roe deer), gallinaceans, and water fowl (geese, ducks). The biological resources of the seas are exploited. Fishes include cod, herring, plaice, halibut, mackerel, pike perch, and salmon; marine mammals hunted in the republic include whales, walruses, seals, and fur seals. Salmon, sturgeon, herring, and fishes of lesser value are caught in internal waters.

Protection of nature. In accordance with existing law, including the 1960 law On the Protection of Nature in the RSFSR, a great deal of attention is devoted to the protection of nature and the rational use of natural resources. Comprehensive measures are being taken to prevent pollution of rivers, underground waters, and air and to protect the earth’s interior, land, and forest resources.

A network of state preserves has been established to protect natural landforms, flora, and fauna. There are more than 30 preserves in different zones and mountain regions, having a total area of almost 5 million ha. The best known are the Altai, Astrakhan, Barguzin, Caucasus, Pechora-Ilych, Oka, Stolby, and Teberda preserves.



Meshcheriakov, Iu. A. Rel’ef SSSR. Moscow, 1972.
Geologicheskoe stroenie SSSR, vols. 1–6. Moscow-Leningrad, 1968–69.
Laz’ko, E. M. Osnovy regional’noi geologii SSSR, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1962—71.
Borisov, A. A. Klimatografiia Sovetskogo Soiuza. Leningrad, 1970.
L’vovich, M. I. Reki SSSR. Moscow, 1971.
Domanitskii, A. P., R. G. Dubrovina, and A. I. Isaeva. Reki i ozera Sovetskogo Soiuza (spravochnye dannye). Leningrad, 1971.
Dobrovol’skii, A. D., and B. S. Zalogin. Moria SSSR. Moscow, 1965.
Liverovskii, Iu. A. Pochvy SSSR: Geograficheskaia kharakteristika. Moscow, 1974.
Rastitel’nyi pokrov SSSR. (Explanatory text to a geobotanical map of the USSR with a scale of 1:4,000,000.) Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Lesa SSSR, vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1950–58.
Zhivotnyimir SSSR, vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1966.
Bobrinskii, N. A. Zhivotnyi mir i priroda SSSR, 3rd ed., rev. Moscow, 1967.
Mil’kov, F. N., and N. A. Gvozdetskii. Fizicheskaia geografiia SSSR: Obshchii obzor—Evropeiskaia chast’ SSSR, Kavkaz, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1969.
Gvozdetskii, N. A., and N. I. Mikhailov. Fizicheskaia geografiia SSSR: Aziatskaia chast’, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1970.
Prirodnye resursy Sovetskogo Soiuza, ikh ispol’zovanie i vosproizvodstvo. Moscow, 1963.
Sever Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow, 1966. In the series Prirodnye usloviia i estestvennye resursy SSSR.
Sredniaia polosa Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow, 1967.
lugo-Vostok Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow, 1971.
Kavkaz. Moscow, 1966.
Urali Priural’e. Moscow, 1968.
Zapadnaia Sibir’. Moscow, 1963.
Sredniaia Sibir’. Moscow, 1964.
Predbaikal’e i Zabaikal’e. Moscow, 1965.
Iakutiia. Moscow, 1965.
Sever Dal’nego Vostoka. Moscow, 1970.
Iuzhnaia chast’Dal’nego Vostoka. Moscow, 1969.
Fiziko-geograficheskoe raionirovanie SSSR. Moscow, 1968.

The RSFSR is inhabited by more than 100 different peoples (see Table 2). The Russians, whose language is one of the group of East Slavic languages, live throughout the republic and constitute, according to the 1970 census, 82.8 percent of the population. They constitute an absolute majority of the population not only in the oblasts but also in virtually all autonomous okrugs and autonomous oblasts. (In the Karachai-Cherkess Autonomous Oblast, Russians make up 47.1 percent of the population, in the Komi-Permiak Autonomous Okrug 36 percent, in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 46.9 percent, and in the Aga-Buriat Autonomous Okrug 44 percent.) Russians also make up a significant part of the population in the autonomous republics—from 14.7 percent in the Dagestan ASSR to 73.5 percent in the Buriat ASSR. The two other peoples that speak East Slavic languages, the Ukrainians and Byelorussians, have settled throughout the RSFSR. The largest groups of Ukrainians are found in the oblasts adjacent to the Ukrainian SSR, in the northern Caucasus, and in the southern region of the Urals and Siberia. Byelorussians are concentrated in the Karelian ASSR and Kaliningrad Oblast. Karelians, Veps, Izhora (Ingrians), Lapps, and Komi-Permiaks, who by language are classed in the Finno-Ugric group, live in the northern European part of the RSFSR. The Mari, Mordovian, and Udmurt peoples of the Middle Volga Region also speak languages belonging to this group. The Turkic-speaking Chuvash, Bashkir, and Tatar peoples inhabit the other Volga regions and the southern Urals. (The Tatars have settled throughout the RSFSR, particularly in the Bashkir ASSR, Siberia, and the Far East.) Small groups of Mordovians and Chuvashes live in virtually all krais and oblasts of the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East. The Mongolian-speaking Kalmyks live in the Lower Volga Region, and in regions adjacent to the Kazakh SSR there are Turkic-speaking Kazakhs.

The most complex region of the RSFSR in an ethnic sense is the Northern Caucasus, whose population consists not only of Russians and Ukrainians but also of peoples of the Iranian language group (Ossets) and the Turkic language group (Karachai,

Table 2. Population of the RSFSR by nationality (according to 1970 census)
NationalityPopulation (thousands)
1includes (thousands) Avar 361.6, Darghin 224.2, Kumyk 186.7, Lak 78.6, Tabasaran 54.0, Nogai 51.2, Rutul 11.9, Agul 8.8, and Tsakhur 4.7 2includes (thousands) Nenets 28.5, Evenk 25.1, Khanty 21.0, Chukchi 13.5, Even 11.8, Nanai 9.9, Mansi 7.6, Koriak 7.4, Dolgan 4.7, Nivkh 4.4, Selkup 4.2, Ulchi 2.4, Lapp 1.8, Udegei 1.4, Itelmen 1.3, Ket 1.2, Orochi 1.0, Nganasani 0.8, Yukaghir 0.6, Negidal 0.5
Russian ....................107,747.6
Tatar ......................4,757.9
Ukrainian ...................3,345.9
Chuvash ....................1,637.0
Dagestani nationalities1 ..........1,152.2
Byelorussian .................964.1
Jewish .....................807.9
German ....................761.9
Chechen ....................572.2
Kazakh .....................477.8
Komi and Komi-Permiak .....................465.6
 Komi .....................315.4
 Komi-Permiak ...............150.2
Armenian ..................298.7
Nationalities of the North, Siberia, and the Far East2 ...............149.1
Karelian ...................141.1
Tuva .....................139.0
Ingush .....................137.4
Kalmyk .....................131.3
Polish .....................107.1
Karachai .....................106.8
Korean .....................101.4
Adygeian .....................98.5
Gypsy .....................98.0
Azerbaijani .....................95.7
Moldavian .....................87.5
Lithuanian .....................76.7
Georgian .....................69.0
Khakass .....................65.4
Estoninian .....................63.0
Finn .....................62.3
Uzbek .....................61.6
Latvian .....................59.7
Greek .....................57.8
Altai .....................54.6
Balkar .....................53.0
Circassian .....................38.4
Abaza .....................24.9
Turkmen .....................20.0
Shortsy .....................15.9
Vep .....................8.1
Eskimo .....................1.3
Aleut .....................0.4
Others .....................148.6

Balkars, Kumyks, and Nogai). Also represented are two groups of Caucasian languages: the Abkhazo-Adyg (Kabardins, Adige, Circassians, and Abazas) and the Nakho-Dagestan (Chechen, Ingush, Avars, Darghin, Lezghians, Laks, Tabasarans, Rutuls, Aguls, and Tsakhurs).

The comparatively small populations of indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Far East are settled over vast regions, sometimes exceeding the largest European countries in area. The Yakut, Dolgan, Altai, Shortsy, Khakass, and Tuva peoples speak languages of the Turkic group. The language of the Buriats belongs to the Mongolian group, and the Khanty and Mansi speak Finno-Ugric languages. The Nenets, Nganasani, and Selkup languages belong to the Samoyedic group. The Evenki, Negidals, Eveny, Nanai, Olchi, Orochi, and Udegei belong to the Tunguso-Manchurian group of languages, and the Eskimo and Aleuts are assigned to the Eskimo-Aleut group. The Chukchi, Koriaks, and Itelmen speak Chukchi-Kamchatka languages of the Paleo-Asiatic family. The Nivkh, Yukaghir, and Ket speak genetically isolated Paleo-Asiatic languages.

Russian is the language by which the peoples of the RSFSR communicate with one another. According to the 1970 census, 53.9 percent of the non-Russian population (more than 12 million persons) named Russian as their second language, and more than 24 percent (5.4 million persons) considered Russian as their native language.


Between 1914 and 1974 the population of the RSFSR increased by almost 50 percent, and despite enormous losses in the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 the population has risen 21.5 percent since 1940. Population growth has been greatest in the Far East (100 percent), Eastern Siberia (59 percent), the Urals (45.5 percent), the Northern Caucasus (43 percent), and Western Siberia (34.9 percent). The growth rate of population in the RSFSR has been lower than that of many other republics owing to a low birthrate and emigration to other regions of the USSR. There has been significant population migration within the republic itself as a result of the development of new mineral deposits, the establishment of industrial centers, and the construction of railroads, pipelines, and the like.

The population density of the RSFSR (7.8 persons per sq km on Jan. 1, 1975) is lower than that of the other Union republics (with the exception of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan). However, there are major regional differences caused by the pattern of settlement and economic development of the land. The central regions of the European part are most densely settled. In the Central Zone the population density is 58.2 persons per sq km (including 291.7 persons per sq km in Moscow Oblast and 75.2 persons per sq km in Tula Oblast), and in the Central Chernozem Zone it is 46.4 persons per sq km (50.2 persons per sq km in Lipetsk Oblast). The lowest densities are 1.9 persons per sq km in Eastern Siberia (1.3 persons per sq km in Krasnoiarsk Krai), and 1.0 person per sq km in the Far East (0.4 person per sq km in Magadan Oblast). The disproportion in location of population between the eastern and western regions is substantial: more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are found in the European part (including the Urals).

The average annual number of industrial and office workers is 59.5 million (1974); of this number 53 percent are female. Of the total number of persons employed in the national economy, the sectors of material production account for 74.9 percent (1973), including 47.9 percent in industry, construction, and transportation and communications (the branches that serve production sectors), 18.2 percent in agriculture and forestry, and 7.8 percent in trade, food services, procurement, supply services, and sales. The nonproduction sectors employed 25.1 percent of the population, including 16.7 percent for education, science, art, and public health.

The urban population has risen in connection with industrialization (see Table 3). On Jan. 1, 1975, it constituted 67 percent of the entire population, as compared to 17 percent before the October Revolution. The RSFSR has the largest percentage of urban population, after Estonia, among the Union republics. The highest percentage—70 to 90 percent—is found in the northern and eastern regions, where the development of natural resources demands the creation of cities and settlements and where possibilities for agriculture are limited. The percentage of urban population is also high in the old industrial regions—the centers for scientific and technological progress (the Central Zone, the Urals).

Rapid population growth rates in the cities and settlements are typical of the autonomous national regions; these rates

Table 3. Population of the RSFSR
1 End of year 2According to census on January 17 3Estimate on January 1 4According to census on January 15
19131 ...........................89.915.774.21783

reflect the economic and cultural development of the regions. The percentage of urban population is 77 in the Northwest Region (including 90 percent in Leningrad Oblast and 89 percent in Murmansk Oblast), 76 in the Central Zone (87 percent in Moscow Oblast and 79 percent in Ivanovo Oblast), 75 in the Far East (83 percent in Sakhalin Oblast and 80 percent in Khabarovsk Krai), and 73 in the Urals (84 percent in Sverdlovsk Oblast). The urban populations of Western Siberia (including Kemerovo Oblast at 85 percent) and Eastern Siberia (Irkutsk Oblast at 76 percent) are at the level of the RSFSR average. As a rule, the eastern regions (69 percent) surpass the European RSFSR and the Urals (67 percent) for proportion of urban population.

More than half of the Soviet Union’s largest cities are located in the RSFSR. Among them are six cities with populations of more than 1 million (Jan. 1, 1975): Moscow (7,632,000), Leningrad (4,311,000), Gorky (1,283,000), Novosibirsk (1,265,000), Kuibyshev (1,164,000), and Sverdlovsk (1,147,000). There are 17 cities with populations between 500,000 and 1 million: Cheliabinsk (969,000), Omsk (968,000), Kazan (946,000), Perm’ (939,000), Volgograd (900,000), Ufa (895,000), Rostov-on-Don (888,000), Saratov (834,000), Krasnoiarsk (748,000), Voronezh (746,000), Yaroslavl (568,000), Krasnodar (532,000), Novokuznetsk (525,000), Vladivostok (511,000), Irkutsk (508,000), Izhevsk (506,000), and Barnaul (502,000).

The number of cities and urban-type settlements almost doubled between 1940 and 1974. Of the new cities built after the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, the following have been marked by particularly rapid growth (Jan. 1, 1975): Angarsk (228,000), Naberezhnye Chelny (197,000), Bratsk (190,000), Volzhskii (188,000), Salavat (128,000), Nakhodka (125,000), and Novokuibyshevsk (112,000).

Primitive communal system. The oldest traces of human habitation in what is now the RSFSR date from approximately 400,000 years ago and were discovered in the Northern Caucasus and the Kuban’ region, which man penetrated from Transcaucasia. The earliest period of the Stone Age ended about 100,000 years ago. During the Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian culture), between 100,000 and 35,000 years ago, Neanderthal man mastered techniques of making fire. Settlements appeared along the lower Volga and in the Central Urals during this period; people not only lived in caves but constructed such man-made dwellings as pit houses and semipit houses (seePIT HOUSE). During the Upper Paleolithic, between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago, the formation of the physical appearance of modern man (Homo sapiens) was completed. People crossed the arctic circle and settled part of Siberia.

The bow and arrow appeared during the Mesolithic. The domestication of animals began in the southern regions. The differentiation of material culture in different regions increased. The sixth or fifth millennium B.C. saw the beginning of the Neolithic period. Tribes began taking shape, thus initiating the long, complex process of development of the ethnic groups that were later to constitute the basis for the formation of the peoples of the European and Asiatic parts of what is now the RSFSR. The transition began from a food-gathering economy to a productive economy as represented by the oldest forms of land cultivation and livestock raising. The differences in levels of tribal development began deepening. A hunting and fishing economy was still predominant in the Northern European area. Pottery-making spread everywhere.

The Bronze Age began in the Northern Caucasus in the third millennium B.C. By the end of the second millennium B.C., bronze tools had spread—for example, through barter-throughout virtually all of the present-day territory of the RSFSR with the exception of the northern regions, where the Neolithic culture survived for a long period. Centers for the manufacture of metal tools arose in the Urals, in Western Siberia, and along the upper Volga. Livestock raising developed in the steppe and forest-steppe zones, and land cultivation in the river valleys. Large military alliances of tribes appeared, and the social structure took the form of military democracy (seeMAIKOP KURGAN). At the same time, the matrilineal-clan organization still survived in the north and the east.

The first millennium B.C. saw the beginning of the Iron Age and the intensification of the processes of economic and social development. Iron tools appeared among the tribes of the Northern Caucasus, the Scythians, and the Sarmatians. In the late fifth and early fourth centuries B.C., the Scythians formed a large union of tribes that covered vast areas of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions, including the territories bordering the Sea of Azov. The Sarmatians pressed upon the Scythians in the third century. The southern areas of what is now the RSFSR had ties with the slaveholding city-states along the northern Black Sea coast and, through the city-states, with the economy and culture of the classical world.

In the third and fourth centuries A.D., the East European Plain was invaded by nomadic peoples—in the third century by the Goths and in the fourth century by the Huns. The Alani formed a union in the Northern Caucasus lasting from the fourth to the eighth centuries. In the mid-sixth century, an alliance of nomadic tribes headed by the Avars took shape in the steppes of Eastern Europe; in the seventh century, the Avars suffered defeat in their struggle with the Byzantine Empire.

To the north and east of the Sea of Azov, the Bulgars roamed in the fifth century. Some of them settled on the Danube in the late fifth century, but many became subject to the Turkic Kaganate, a large state centered in Middle Asia that arose in the sixth century; Altaic tribes also played a role in its formation. In the struggle against the Arab invasion, it broke up into the East Turkic Kaganate and the West Turkic Kaganate. On the site of the West Turkic Kaganate there arose in the seventh century the Khazar Kaganate, which subordinated the nomadic and seminomadic tribes of the Northern Caucasus and the Azov and Don regions. A powerful new union of Bulgars, called Great Bulgaria, was formed in the struggle against the West Turkic Kaganate. The authority of Great Bulgaria extended to the Azov, Don, and Kuban’ regions in the seventh century; the state broke up, however, in the same century. The Khazar Kaganate established its authority in the areas previously subject to Great Bulgaria. Some of the Bulgars defeated by the kaganate withdrew to the Danube. Other Bulgars moved to the Volga and the Kama, where Bulgaria on the Volga, which united the peoples of the Middle Volga Region, arose in the tenth century. Bulgaria on the Volga was one of the large early feudal states of Eastern Europe.

Tribes of the D’iakovo culture lived in the region between the Volga and the Oka. These tribes descended from local Neolithic tribes and belonged to the Finno-Ugric group; they were the ancestors of the Meria, the Ves’, and the Muroma. Tribes of the Gorodetsk culture lived along the middle courses of the Oka and the Volga, and tribes of the Anan’ino and P’ianyi Bor cultures inhabited the Kama and Urals regions. The tribes of these three cultures were the ancestors of the Mordovians, Udmurts, and Chuvash.

In Siberia, the state of the Enisei-Kirghiz, the ancestors of the present-day Khakass, formed in the sixth century along the middle Enisei. The Tashtyk culture was prevalent in this region from the second century B.C. to the fourth century A.D. The state of Pohai arose in the Primor’e and Amur regions in the eighth century.

By the end of the first millennium A.D., the processes of the disintegration of the primitive communal system and the emergence of social classes and the state had become virtually universal throughout the territory of what is now the RSFSR.

The ancient Slavs took shape as an entity in Eastern Europe. Here, their common ethnic character and their economic commonality—plow farming, settled livestock raising, and metalworking—developed over a long period under the dominance of the patriarchal clan system. During the Great Migration of Peoples of the third century A.D., the division into Eastern, Western, and Southern Slavs occurred. Among the Eastern Slavs, the leading position by the middle of the first millennium A.D. was held by the tribes of the middle Dnieper region, who had a highly developed farming culture.

Formation and development of feudal relations (to the 15th century). Although slavery existed from ancient times in Eastern Europe, Siberia, and the Far East, it did not become the foundation of a new, class-based social system. The development of plow farming, livestock raising, and cottage industries among the Eastern Slavs contributed to the advancement of production within the framework of the communal system. The tribal-clan aristocracy became the owners of the land and natural resources. The aristocracy of the druzhiny (seeDRUZHINA), which formed in the period of military democracy and was headed by the chieftain-princes, gradually shifted from campaigns aimed at capturing booty and prisoners to the conquest of arable land. Ruined by the increasingly frequent wars, the smerdy (peasants) often had to turn to the feudal lords for aid; in doing this they lost their personal freedom. Many communal lands were forcibly taken by the aristocracy. Tribute gradually turned into feudal rent. By the late eighth or early ninth century, the long and complex process of the development of feudal relations had led to the emergence of the early feudal state of ancient Rus’. Centered at Kiev, this state played a large role in the establishment and spread of feudal relations (seeKIEVAN RUS’). Christianity, which was introduced in 988–989, contributed to the consolidation of state power and feudal relations and to the strengthening of the international position of Kievan Rus’ (seeCHRISTIANIZATION OF RUS’). The feudal system became firmly established among the Eastern Slavs in the 11 th century.

By repelling the attacks of the nomadic Pechenegs and Polovtsy, Kievan Rus’ became the most important state in Eastern Europe. It had extensive international ties and a high level of material and spiritual culture. The flowering of Kievan Rus’ was due to the achievements of the princes Vladimir Sviatoslavich, who ruled from about 980 to 1015, and Iaroslav the Wise, who ruled from 1019 to 1054. Under Iaroslav was initiated the compilation of the Russkaia Pravda, which was a collection of early feudal legal standards consolidating the power of the state and, subsequently, of the boyar landowners over the exploited population of the country. Kievan Rus’ was the center for the formation of the old Russian nationality; it was the common historical motherland of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian peoples.

The spread of feudal relations was accompanied by the exacerbation of the class struggle; for example, there were uprisings in Kiev in 1068–69 and 1113, and movements of the smerdy arose in the Rostov-Suzdal’ Land and Beloozero in 1024 and 1071. As a result of the spread of feudal relations, new feudal centers gained importance, and the power of the local feudal lords increased. Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who ruled from 1113 to 1125, managed to retain Kievan Rus’ under his authority. After the death of the Kievan grand prince Mstislav Vladimirovich in 1132, however, the state of ancient Rus’ disintegrated. Such states as the Vladimir-Suzdal’ Principality, Galician-Volynian Principality, and the Novgorod Feudal Republic separated from Kievan Rus’ and acquired an independent existence. Prince Andrei Bogoliubskii, who ruled Vladimir-Suzdal’ from 1157 to 1174, made the city of Vladimir on the Kliaz’ma River his capital; the city became the center of the grand principality. The strengthening of the prince’s power was stubbornly opposed by the feudal aristocracy, that is, by the boyars. The principality of Vladimir-Suzdal’ became a strong political force under Andrei and his successor Vsevolod Bol’shoe Gnezdo, who ruled from 1176 to 1212.

A distinctive political system was established in the Novgorod Land in 1136. There the boyar aristocracy succeeded in limiting the prince’s power; the office of prince was made elective, like that of the head of the Novgorod church, the archbishop, who played an important role in the government of Novgorod. The veche (popular assembly) enabled the population of Novgorod to exercise some influence on the course of political events. In actuality, however, the real power belonged to the boyar aristocracy. Novgorod was a highly developed artisan and commercial center; it had ties both with the lands of ancient Rus’ and with the Hanseatic League, a commercial union of northern German cities. The development of Novgorod’s economic and political life and the spread of literacy are evidenced by the beresto writings (letters and documents written on birchbark), the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.

In a battle at the Kalka River in 1223, the Mongol-Tatars defeated the southern Russian princes, and in 1236 they began their invasion of Eastern Europe. They overran Bulgaria on the Volga. In 1237 they delivered a devastating blow to the Riazan’ Land. In the winter of 1237–38 they ravaged the area between the Oka and the Volga. Cities were destroyed, and great numbers of people were killed or led into captivity. The lands of Novgorod-Pskov and Smolensk, however, escaped invasion. The people of ancient Rus’ heroically resisted the Mongol-Tatars. The residents of the cities stubbornly defended themselves against the invaders, who suffered heavy losses. Bled white, the Mongol-Tatars halted at the borders of Germany and Bohemia.

Almost simultaneously, Rus’ was attacked from the west. Swedish aggressors invaded in 1240 but were crushed in the battle of the Neva of 1240 by Russian druzhiny under the leadership of Alexander Nevsky. In the Battle of the Ice of 1242, Alexander Nevsky led the Russian forces in a rout of the German knights who had entered the land of Pskov.

As a result of the increasing feudal fragmentation and the threat from the Mongol-Tatars, the southern and western Russian lands fell under the power of the strengthened Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Hungary gained Transcarpathia, and Poland obtained control of Galicia. The Mongol-Tatar yoke, which was established in the mid-13th century, undermined the economy of the Russian lands and held back the development of social and cultural processes. The feudal fragmentation of Rus’ continued. New appanage principalities appeared within the old independent principalities, such as those of Rostov, Tver’, Nizhny Novgorod, and Riazan’. The economy, which had been devastated by the Mongol-Tatar invaders, was largely restored in the late 13th and early 14th centuries through the persistent efforts of the people. The process of the feudal fragmentation of Rus’ continued in the second half of the 13th century and in the 14th century.

Formation and development of the Russian state (first half of the 15th to early 17th centuries). What is known as northeastern Rus’—the area between the Oka and Volga rivers—became the center of the socioeconomic and political life of the Russian lands. The concentration of the mass of the population in forested regions sheltered from sudden invasions was responsible for the growth of cities and the gradual development of land cultivation, livestock raising, and cottage industries. New lands were developed. Implements and land-cultivation techniques were improved, and the three-field system of crop rotation was perfected. Handicraft production was revived and made rapid progress. The upsurge in the economy was closely connected with the development of feudal landholding, especially church landholding. The power of the princes increased. The strengthening of feudal relations exacerbated the class struggle of the peasants and townspeople. There were disturbances among the peasants attached to, for example, the Kirill-Belozersk, Nikol’skoe, Kaliazin, and Boldino monasteries. The townspeople revolted in Kostroma in 1304, Briansk in 1340, Moscow in 1382 and 1445, Novgorod in 1340,1359, and 1418, and Pskov in 1385 and from 1483 to 1485. Class conflicts often assumed the form of religious heresies.

The development of society’s productive forces was reflected in the growth of trade, which contributed to the strengthening of economic ties between regions. The preconditions for the formation of a single Russian state appeared. After an intense struggle, primarily between the principalities of Moscow and Tver’, the Muscovite princes, supported by the church, won political supremacy. In the second half of the 14th century, Moscow led the armed struggle of the Russian lands against the Mongol-Tatar yoke and gradually became the center for the unification of the Russian lands. In the historic battle of Kulikovo of 1380, the united Russian forces, under the leadership of Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi, defeated the Mongol-Tatars, thereby strengthening Moscow’s role in the unification of the Russian lands into a single state. The feudal war of the second quarter of the 15th century showed that politically conditions were ripe for the formation of a single state. Taking advantage of the internal contradictions in the Russian feudal lands and making use of the centripetal forces in various social strata of the society, the grand princes of Moscow essentially completed the unification of the Russian lands in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Novgorod was annexed in 1478, Tver’ in 1485, Pskov in 1510, Smolensk in 1514, and Riazan’ in 1521. The process of the unification of the state was closely linked with the struggle against the external threat. Although the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off in 1480, the Russian state was faced with the difficult problem of defense against attacks by the successors to the Golden Horde—the Crimean, Kazan, and Astrakhan khanates—and by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the orders of German knights in the Baltic Region.

The Russian nationality took shape in the area settled in antiquity by the tribes of the Viatichi, Krivichi, Slovene, and Severiane. A role in the formation of the nationality was also played by such non-Slavic tribes as the Ves’, Goliad’, Meria, and Muroma; these tribes gradually became russianized and adopted the Russian language. Many peoples of the North and the Volga Region became part of the Russian state, whose multinational character subsequently became even greater.

The centralization of state power and administration advanced in the Russian state. Of considerable importance was the Sudebnik (Code) of 1497, compiled under Ivan III Vasil’evich, who ruled from 1462 to 1505. It established a single judicial and administrative system and continued the juridical formalization (begun earlier in the Grand Principality of Moscow) of the system of serfdom throughout the state. The dvorianstvo (nobility) was the main social base of support for the centralizing power. The growth of the dvorianstvo imparted great urgency to the question of the right of the church to possess inhabited lands. This question was most clearly expressed in the struggle between the Josephites and the nestiazhateli (Nonpossessors). In the early 16th century the domestic policy of the state turned toward an alliance with the church, which provided an ideological justification for a strong state power. The reasons for this turn were the insufficient level of political activity by the dvorianstvo and townspeople and the continued existence of substantial vestiges of feudal fragmentation—that is, the holding of real economic and political power by the great feudal lords, who were opposed to an increase in the power of the grand prince. A consciousness of Russia’s unity developed in the course of Russia’s struggle for independence; this consciousness was reflected in various spheres of culture.

During the 16th century the area of the Russian state reached 5.5 million sq km, an area ten times greater than that of the former Grand Principality of Moscow. The state, however, was unevenly settled and had the comparatively small population of 9–10 million by the end of the 16th century. The most densely settled and economically developed areas were the lands of the Zamoskovnyi Krai, which was north of the Oka, and the Novgorod-Pskov region. The settlement and economic development of Dikoe Pole (territories south of the Oka), the Volga Region, the Trans-Volga Region, and Western Siberia began. The first half of the 16th century saw the further development of the cities, market relations, crafts, agriculture, and cottage industries. Economic disunity, however, was not overcome. Large feudal holdings based on a subsistence economy still were found, internal customs boundaries existed, princes and boyars had their own troops, and there were other “strong traces of the former autonomy.” For this reason, “one could hardly speak of national ties in the true sense of the term at that time: the state split into separate ‘lands,’ sometimes even principalities” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 1, p. 153).

The process of the formation of the Russian nationality was completed by about the beginning of the 16th century. The name “Russia” (Rossiia/) came into increasingly wider use. In the second half of the 16th century, Russia was inhabited by Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Karelians, Lapps, Veps (Ves’), Nentsi (Samoyeds), Komi (Zavoloch’e Chud’), Khanty, Mansi (Ugrians), Tatars, Bashkirs, Udmurts (Votyaks), Mari (Cheremis), Chuvash, Mordovians, Kumyks, Nogai, Kabardins, and some other small ethnic groups.

The great feudal lords made use of their substantial material resources in their efforts to preserve an independent position in the state and opposed the grand princes’ attempts to centralize the political system. The domestic political struggle became sharpest in the mid-16th century under the first Russian tsar, Ivan IV Vasil’evich (Ivan the Terrible), who became grand prince in 1533 and tsar in 1547 and ruled until 1584. In the beginning of his reign he undertook a number of reforms aimed at strengthening the dvorianstvo and increasing the centralization of the state. One of the most important problems of foreign policy was resolved when the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates were conquered. The advance into the Trans-Ural Region and Western Siberia was begun.

The war in the West for an outlet to the Baltic Sea (seeLIVONIAN WAR OF 1558—83) brought a new exacerbation of the struggle between the opposition formed by the princes and boyars and the authority of the state. The attempt of the tsar to strengthen his position by means of the terrorist system called the oprichnina resulted in still greater discontent among various strata of society, the ruin of a considerable part of the country, and the flight of the population to the borderlands. To ensure that the peasants and townspeople would fulfill their obligations to the feudal lords and the state, the government enacted the forbidden years (seeFORBIDDEN YEARS) at the end of the 16th century and then abolished the age-old right of the peasant to leave his feudal lord around St. George’s Day. With regard to the townspeople, it searched out and returned posadskie liudi (merchants and artisans) who had left their communities. The government also implemented other measures constituting a crucial stage on the road to the creation of a state system of serfdom. The popular masses responded with an intensification of antifeudal action, which took the form of the Peasant War of the early 17th century, the central event of which was the uprising led by I.I. Bolotnikov. The struggle between the boyars and the dvorianstvo also exacerbated. The country’s complicated domestic situation was taken advantage of by the Polish and Swedish feudal lords, who invaded Russia in 1604. Polish troops seized Moscow. A people’s militia led by K. Z. Minin and D. M. Pozharskii liberated Moscow in 1612. Part of the western and northwestern areas of Russia, however, remained under the dominion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden.

In 1613 the reign of the Romanov dynasty was established in Russia.

Russia in the period of the formation and development of bourgeois relations and absolutism. In the 17th century, Russia entered a new period of its history, a period characterized by the gradual formation of bourgeois national ties: “the leaders and masters of this process were the merchant capitalists” (V. I. Lenin, ibid., p. 154). In the cities, artisanship was largely replaced by small-scale commodity production. Entrepreneurship began developing among the dvorianstvo, and there appeared state factories (manufactories), which produced weapons and metals needed by the state. Domestic trade increased, particularly along the rivers. Considerable merchant capital was accumulated. Ties between small local markets were strengthened, and an all-Russian market developed. The capital of the state, Moscow, became the most important center for commercial relations. The emergence of bourgeois elements in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, took place against the background of a strengthened serf system, the lack of access by Russia to the seas, and the dominance of foreign traders. Not until the New Commercial Statute of 1667 were Russian merchants given privileges in the domestic market. Factory production was based on serf labor and was small in scale.

The strengthening of the dvorianstvo resulted in the consolidation of the ownership of land by the feudal lords and pomeshchiki (fief holders) and the further development of the serf system. The Sobornoe Ulozhenie (Law Code) of 1649 completed the legal formalization of the system of serfdom, which in various forms affected the inhabitants not only of privately held lands but of state lands as well. The posadskie liudi, for example, were bound by the Sobornoe Ulozhenie to their communities and were required to perform their tax and service obligations to the state. The strengthening of serfdom was a result of the efforts of the feudal state to resolve complicated problems of foreign policy without changes in the existing socioeconomic system. The wars of the Russian state with Poland, Sweden, the Crimean Khanate, and Turkey imposed a heavy burden on the people; taxes grew and obligatory service or work performed for the state increased.

The intensification of exploitation by the feudal lords and the feudal state gave rise in the mid-17th century to urban uprisings, such as the Moscow Uprising of 1648, the Moscow Uprising of 1662, the Novgorod Uprising of 1650, and the Pskov uprising of 1650. Other consequences of the intensification of exploitation were the Peasant War of 1670 and 1671 led by S. T. Razin and the uprisings of the strel’tsy (semiprofessional musketeers) in the late 17th century, including the Moscow Uprising of 1682 and the Uprising of the Strel’tsy of 1698. The schism in the church was an expression of social protest in religious form; the ideology of the schism, however, was conservative and represented chiefly the interests of the reactionary aristocracy and clergy.

The resettlement movement of the popular masses to the southern and eastern borderlands of the state expanded, and the colonization of Siberia was undertaken. Russian zemle-prokhodtsy (seeZEMLEPROKHODTSY) reached the shores of the Pacific Ocean, and in 1697 Verkhnekamchatsk, the first Russian settlement on Kamchatka, was founded. New peoples entering the Russian state included the Yakuts, Buriats, Khakass, Altais, Western Siberian Tatars, Nentsi, Evenki, Eskimos, and Chukchi.

The transition to absolutism was a result of the strengthening of the dvorianstvo, the weakening of the boyars, the development of commodity and money relations, and the strengthening of the feudal state economy. The mid-17th century saw the convening of the last zemskie sobory (national assemblies), the beginning of a number of partial reforms of the state administration and the military, and an increasing consolidation of the autocratic power of the tsar. By the end of the 17th century, conditions were ripe for needed reforms of the economy, state system, and culture. These reforms were necessary in order to resolve problems of foreign policy and to strengthen the feudal state and the dominance of the dvorianstvo at a time of exacerbation of the class struggle.

The reforms were carried out by the government of Tsar (from 1721, Emperor) Peter I (Peter the Great), who ruled from 1682 to 1725. During the Northern War of 1700–21, a regular army and navy were created; important victories were won in the battles of Lesnaia (1708), Poltava (1709), Hangö (1714), and Granhamn (1720), and access to the Baltic Sea was gained. In the first quarter of the 18th century, a radical reorganization of central and local government was carried out. For example, the Boyar Duma and the prikazy (offices) were abolished, the Senate and the collegia were created, the country was divided into gubernii (provinces), and the Table of Ranks, a system governing promotion and seniority in military and civilian service, was established. In 1721, Russia was proclaimed the Russian Empire. Industry, which was based primarily on serf labor, achieved a considerable degree of development; more than 200 factories were established in the first quarter of the 18th century compared to 30 over the entire 17th century. The mining industry in the Urals developed especially rapidly. Trade increased, and a favorable balance of foreign trade was achieved. The merchant class was strengthened. The dvorianstvo, however, benefited most from the reforms; it acquired the dominant position in the state administration. The church was subordinated to the state; the patriarchate was abolished, and the Ecclesiastical Collegium, later called the Holy Synod, was created. Important changes took place in the field of culture. For example, secular schools were established, ties with Western European culture increased, the printing of books developed, the Academy of Sciences was founded in 1724 and opened in 1725, and a new calendar was adopted that took effect in 1700. Changes took place in the way of life of the dvorianstvo. The reforms and military conquests that transformed Russia into a world power were based on serfdom and the intensification of the feudal exploitation of the masses. This fact is evidenced by the introduction of the poll tax of 1724 and compulsory military service, the assignment of peasants to the construction of fortress and canals and to work in factories, and the introduction of various taxes and obligatory payments. A number of popular movements resulted, including the Astrakhan Uprising of 1705–06 and the Bulavin Revolt of 1707–09; these movements were brutally suppressed by the government.

After the death of Peter I, a power struggle flared up between various groups of the dvorianstvo and caused a series of palace coups in the second quarter of the 18th century. The members of the dvorianstvo received the exclusive right to own inhabited lands. The merchants, who had an interest in a cheap serf labor force, sought to enter the estate of the dvorianstvo. Serfdom assumed cruel and barbarous forms. The rabotnye liudi (workers) were bound to the factories.

Elements of capitalist development were clearly evident in the second half of the 18th century in Russia; they were reflected in the growth of commodity and money relations and the increase in factories employing hired labor, particularly in the area of light industry. The economic distinction between historically established grain-producing and grain-consuming areas was reinforced. In the central chernozem provinces of Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Riazan’, Tambov, and Tula, three-fourths of the peasants of the pomeshchiki (landowners) were on corvée. These regions produced an increasing amount of grain for both the domestic and foreign markets. In the central nonchernozem provinces of Vladimir, Kaluga, Kostroma, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver’, and Yaroslavl, the majority of peasants were on cash obrok (quitrent). Here, peasant industries developed, and otkhodnichestvo (temporary work by peasants outside their permanent place of residence) increased.

The dvorianstvo obtained exclusive privileges and became a closed estate; its members were freed from compulsory state service but retained their decisive position throughout the system of central and local government. An important role in these developments was played by the Manifesto on Freedom of the Nobility and by the Charter of the Nobility of 1785. The government of Empress Catherine II, who ruled from 1762 to 1796, increased the landholdings of the dvorianstvo through the mass granting of state lands. In order to replenish the state’s land-holdings, the church lands were secularized in 1764.

The mass discontent and insubordination of the peasants soon took the form of the Peasant War of 1773–75. Led by E. I. Pugachev, it was the largest peasant war in Russian history; the non-Russian peoples of the Volga Region and the Urals also took part. After the brutal suppression of the Peasant War, the government increased the power of the dvorianstvo in the provinces through the provincial reform of 1775. In the second half of the 18th century, advanced Russian social thought, as represented by, for example, la. P. Kozel’skii, N. I. Novikov, and S. E. Desnitskii, spoke out more and more resolutely against serfdom in all its forms. At the end of the century, the first Russian revolutionary republican, A. N. Radishchev, called for the revolutionary overthrow of the autocracy as an essential condition for the elimination of serfdom.

In foreign policy, the tsarist government continued the struggle for the security of its southern borders. The government was also influenced by the desire of the dvorianstvo to possess the fertile southern lands and by the merchants’ wish for advantageous trade routes over the Black Sea.

As a result of Russian victories over Turkey, the Crimean Khanate ceased to exist in 1783, the northern shore of the Black Sea passed to the Russian Empire, and a border was established along the Dnestr River. The Russo-Turkish wars contributed to an upsurge in the liberation movement of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. The Russo-Turkish wars of the late 18th century displayed the army and naval leadership abilities of P. A. Rumiantsev-Zadunaiskii, A. V. Suvorov, and F. F. Ushakov. Russia’s international position was strengthened. In the 1770’s and 1790’s, Russia, Austria, and Prussia carried out three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (seeST. PETERSBURG CONVENTIONS). As a result of these partitions, Russia obtained the Right-bank Ukraine and all of Byelorussia.

The early 19th century was marked by a series of reforms by Emperor Alexander I, who ruled from 1801 to 1825. The reforms were aimed at weakening the most extreme manifestations of serfdom. Attempts were also made in this period to modernize the state. Examples of the measures taken are the authorization of the pomeshchiki to allow their peasants to become svobodnye khlebopashtsy (free cultivators), the banning of the publication of announcements of the sale of peasants, the easing of censorship, the establishment of the ministries and the Council of State, and the opening of new universities.

As a result of wars and diplomatic efforts, the Russian Empire acquired new territories: in 1801, Eastern Georgia; in 1809, Finland, which retained some degree of autonomy; and in 1812, part of Western Georgia and Bessarabia. Russia took part in the wars of the Third Coalition (1805) and the Fourth Coalition (1806–07) against Napoleonic France; these wars concluded for Russia with the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807, which was directed against England and subordinated Russia to France. In 1812, Napoleon’s forces invaded Russia, and the Patriotic War of 1812 began. The retreat of the Russian Army was accompanied by tenacious fighting. In the decisive battle of Borodino, which took place on Aug. 26 (Sept. 7), 1812, the French Army suffered heavy losses and was unable to break through the Russian defenses. In order to preserve the army and gain time to deploy his reserves, the Russian commander in chief, General M. I. Kutuzov, continued the retreat and gave up Moscow. The skillful operations of the Russian Army and the upsurge in the people’s war against the aggressors soon brought about the flight and complete defeat of the Napoleonic army in Russia. In the foreign campaigns of the Russian Army of 1813–14, many of the peoples of Europe were liberated. The fruits of the victory over Napoleon were exploited, however, by the reactionary ruling forces of the European countries. The Congress of Vienna, which was held in 1814 and 1815, laid the groundwork for the creation of the antirevolutionary Holy Alliance headed by tsarist Russia. The Kingdom of Poland was absorbed by the Russian Empire.

After the war, the opposition of the popular masses to the serf system intensified. Disturbances arose in the army as well, but they were mercilessly suppressed by the tsarist government. A period of reaction began in all areas of culture. Harsh censorship regulations were introduced, and religious and monarchist ideas were disseminated. Among the leading military youth of the dvorianstvo, circles were formed at this time advocating the country’s liberation from its oppression by the autocracy and serfdom. The Decembrist Uprising of Dec. 14, 1825, initiated the dvorianstvo stage of the revolutionary liberation movement in Russia. The uprising was suppressed by the government of Emperor Nicholas I, who ruled from 1825 to 1855. The government executed the uprising’s leaders P. I. Pestel’, K. F. Ryleev, S. I. Murav’ev-Apostol, M. P. Bestuzhev-Riumin, and P. G. Kakhovskii. More than 100 people were sentenced to hard labor. Although political reaction became even stronger in the country, the Decembrist uprising exerted a considerable influence on the development of the Russian liberation movement.

The first half of the 19th century was characterized by a crisis in the feudal-serf system. Serfdom hindered the creation of a free labor market, limited domestic trade, and held back the accumulation of capital and the development of capitalism. As early as 1825, however, 95 percent of the workers in the cotton industry were hired laborers. The mining and metallurgical industry of the Urals, which was based on serf labor, entered a period of stagnation. Between 1800 and 1850 the total number of industrial enterprises in the Russian Empire increased from 1,200 to 2,800, and the number of workers grew from 225,000 to 860,000. The industrial revolution began in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century. A central industrial economic region took shape in the central nonchernozem provinces of European Russia. Commercial transactions and turnover increased at the most important fairs, including those in Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov, and Irbit (in the Urals). The cities grew, and by 1851 about 8 percent of the country’s population lived in them. In the 1840’s and 1850’s dozens of steamboats sailed the Volga and the Dnieper. The first railroad, which ran from St. Petersburg to Tsarskoe Selo, was opened in 1837. A railroad connecting St. Petersburg and Moscow was opened in 1851; at the time, it was the longest railroad in the world.

Despite these advances, Russia under serfdom lagged behind the other countries of Europe with respect to both means of production and means of communication. The landowners of the dvorianstvo attempted to raise the productivity of their estates, and their production of grain for sale increased. On most of the middle-sized and small estates, however, there prevailed backward labor methods based on increased exploitation of the peasants. The peasant movement became more active. Tsarism developed a number of plans for adapting the serf system to the new conditions. Between 1837 and 1841, P. D. Kiselev carried out a reform in the administration of the state peasants; this reform was an attempt to maintain the dominance of the feudal state over the state peasants by granting them certain privileges. The peasant question became increasingly acute; it was the fundamental social issue in the 1840’s and 1850’s. The liberals realized the necessity of the abolition of serfdom, but they were opposed to a people’s revolution and worked out projects for the abolition of serfdom from above, that is, by means of reform.

The interests of the people were expressed by the revolutionary democrats, who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of serfdom and opposed liberals of all stripes. In his literary criticism and political journalism, V. G. Belinskii preached hatred of all forms of serfdom and despotism. He advocated the freedom and equality of people. In his view, literature should serve the interests of the people. A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev organized a free Russian press abroad. Their publications Poliarnaia zvezda and Kolokol played an enormous role in the dissemination of antiserfdom, revolutionary, and socialist ideas, although their views were Utopian in nature. A revolutionary circle headed by M. V. Petrashevskii was formed in St. Petersburg in the 1840’s; it propagated the ideas of revolution and socialism (seePETRASHEVSKII CIRCLE). Russian culture of the first half of the 19th century was permeated with the ideas of humanism and protest against serfdom and arbitrary rule and was of great importance in the creation of the ideological and political preconditions for the abolition of serfdom. The crisis in the serf system was responsible for great failures in tsarist foreign policy, which also contributed to the downfall of serfdom.

Tsarism’s counterrevolutionary role in Europe was vividly demonstrated in the suppression of the revolutionary movement in Poland in 1831 and in Hungary in 1849. Russia’s increasingly active foreign policy in the Balkans resulted in military conflict not only with Turkey but also with England and France. During the Crimean War of 1853–56, Russian forces headed by P. S. Nakhimov and V. A. Kornilov heroically defended Sevastopol’. The technical backwardness of the Russian Army predetermined the defeat in the Crimean War and showed tsarism the necessity of abolishing serfdom.

Russia in the period of capitalist development. In the second half of the 19th century, Russia entered the capitalist stage of development. The revolutionary situation of 1859–61 took shape under the conditions of the crisis of the feudal-serf system in the late 1850’s; this revolutionary situation accelerated the downfall of serfdom, an outcome that had been made inevitable by the entire course of Russia’s economic development. The Peasant Reform of 1861 was carried out by the government of Emperor Alexander II, who ruled from 1855 to 1881. The reform freed the 22.5 million peasants belonging to pomeshchiki throughout the Russian Empire, but it preserved the foundation of the class supremacy of the pomeshchiki—large-scale land ownership—and other vestiges of serfdom. The peasantry responded to the reform with new disturbances, such as the Bezdna and Kandeevka uprisings of 1861. The abolition of serfdom was followed by a number of other bourgeois reforms, including the Zemstvo Reform of 1864, the Judicial Reform of 1864, the Municipal Reform of 1870, and the military reforms of 1862–74. All these reforms constituted a step on the road of the transformation of the feudal monarchy into a bourgeois monarchy. More favorable conditions were created for the development of capitalist relations in industry and agriculture.

The 1860’s saw the beginning of the bourgeois democratic period in the history of the Russian liberation movement. The movement was headed by N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Do-broliubov, who united the revolutionary forces around the journal Sovremennik (The Contemporary). The largest revolutionary organization of the 1860’s was Land and Liberty. In the early 1870’s, a new upsurge in the revolutionary movement became evident. The struggle against the autocracy was carried on by the revolutionary Narodniki (seeNARODNICHESTVO), who took part in the “going to the people” movement and spread the ideas of revolution and socialism in the army and among the peasants, students, and workers. In the second half of the 1870’s, the Narodniki created the large conspiratorial organization Land and Liberty, which in 1879 split into the People’s Will and the Black Partition. The first workers’ organizations appeared: the Southern Russian Workers’ Union was founded in Odessa in 1875, and the Northern Union of Russian Workers was organized in St. Petersburg in 1878. The revolutionary movement brought about the formation of the revolutionary situation of the late 1870’s and early 1880’s in Russia. On Mar. 1, 1881, after several unsuccessful attempts, members of the People’s Will assassinated Emperor Alexander II. The government of Emperor Alexander III, who ruled from 1881 to 1894, sought to strengthen the autocracy and the dominance of the pomeshchiki. To these ends, it undertook a reconsideration of the bourgeois reforms that had been carried out (seeCOUNTER-REFORMS).

Nonetheless, capitalist production relations, freed from the impediment of serfdom, developed and were consolidated. Commercial grain farming expanded in the Middle Volga Region, along the Don, and in the Northern Caucasus. By the 1880’s, the industrial revolution was completed. There emerged the new industrial regions of the South, the Donbas, and Baku. The basic economic regions of European Russia took shape: the St. Petersburg, Northern, Central Industrial, Central Chernozem, Volga, and Northern Caucasus economic regions. From 1860 to 1900, the output of Russian industry increased more than sevenfold. Railroad construction furthered the expansion of domestic commodity circulation and the strengthening of Russia’s economic ties with the world market. The length of the railroad lines increased from 3,800 km in 1865 to 37,000 km in 1895. The new social classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were formed. By 1890 the size of the working class in industry and transportation in the Russian Empire reached 1.5 million persons.

In the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, the leading role in the liberation struggle passed to the working class, whose vanguard was the proletariat of St. Petersburg and Moscow. The growth of the workers’ movement led to the appearance of Marxist circles and groups. A conspicuous role in the spread of Marxist ideas in Russia was played by the group Liberation of Labor, which was founded in Geneva in 1883 and was headed by G. V. Plekhanov.

In the 1890’s, Russia experienced a great industrial boom. Railroad construction proceeded at an increased rate. More than 22,000 km of railroads were built in this decade, in contrast to 7,700 km in the 1880’s. Between 1890 and 1900, the output of the ferrous metals industry increased by 320 percent, and the processing of cotton by 94 percent. The following increases in production, in millions of poods (1 pood = 16.38 kg), occurred from 1890 to 1900: coal, from 367.2 to 995.2; oil, from 241 to 632; iron ore, from 106.3 to 367.2; cast iron, from 55.2 to 176.8; and iron and steel, from 48.4 to 134.4. Marketable agricultural output rose, and the breakup of the peasantry as a class intensified. Compared with the leading capitalist countries, however, Russia remained technologically and economically a backward country.

The main contradiction in the development of postreform Russia consisted in the existence of vestiges of serfdom, which retarded the development of capitalism. By the end of the 19th century, 30,000 pomeshchiki had 70 million desiatinas of land (1 desiatina = 1.09 hectares [ha]), whereas 10.5 million peasant households owned 75.5 million desiatinas. The development of capitalism in agriculture was held back by the continued existence of large-scale landholdings of the pomeshchiki, by the failure of the peasant estate to receive full rights, and by the exploitation through debt servitude of the peasants, who were economically dependent on the landlords. Nevertheless, some pomeshchiki did move from the labor-service system (seeOTRABOTKI) to the capitalist system. At the same time, capitalist farming by the kulaks increased. Because of the existence of numerous vestiges of serfdom, possibilities for the expansion of the domestic market and the growth of industry were limited, and Russian capitalism was forced to seek markets in the borderlands of the Russian Empire, which were the empire’s colonies.

Between the 1860’s and the 1880’s, Russia annexed a substantial part of Middle Asia, and the unification of the Kazakh lands under Russia’s dominion was completed. For the peoples of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan, as for those of the Caucasus, the annexation by Russia was objectively progressive. The conditions were created for the elimination of feudal fragmentation and the development of capitalism. Non-Russian peoples were included in the general Russian revolutionary movement.

During the 1850’s and 1860’s, the Amur Region and the Pri-mor’e were officially incorporated into the Russian Empire. Vladivostok was founded in 1860. Under the Russo-Japanese Treaty of 1875, Russia’s sovereignty was recognized over Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands were ceded to Japan. The striving of capitalism to broaden its sphere of dominance fostered the economic development of such sparsely settled, economically and culturally backward regions as Siberia and the Far East. Russian settlers opened up virgin lands in the steppes of Ciscaucasia, which they turned into a region of commercial land cultivation and livestock raising. The Black Sea coast of the Caucasus was developed, and Novorossiisk and Tuapse emerged as port centers there.

In the 19th century the consolidation of the Russian bourgeois nation was completed, as was the formation of nations by a number of large peoples who had become part of Russia. In the 1860’s, there began a period of vigorous all-around development of Russian culture; this upsurge was a result of fundamental socioeconomic progress, the sharpening of the class struggle, and the growth of the revolutionary movement. Great achievements were made in science, literature, and art. Advanced Russian science and culture contributed to the development of the cultures of the other peoples of Russia.

Russia in the period of imperialism and bourgeois democratic revolutions. At the turn of the 20th century, Russia, along with other states, entered the highest stage of capitalism—imperialism. As a result of the high concentration of production and capital, there arose such monopoly associations as Pro-damet, Produgol’, Prodvagon, and Truboprodazha. Although it did not, in the main, differ from the imperialism of the more developed countries, imperialism in Russia had a number of specific characteristics. Advanced industrial and finance capitalism went along with the general economic backwardness of the country. Economically, the different regions of Russia developed extremely unevenly. Alongside the monopoly forms of capitalism, capitalist relations were still just taking shape over large territories. Some peoples were at the feudal stage of development, and many non-Russian peoples retained considerable vestiges of patrilineal clan relations. A characteristic feature of Russia’s social structure was its mixed nature: not only were the newest forms of capitalism intertwined with premonopoly forms, which predominated, but capitalist relations coexisted with very strong vestiges of serfdom.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the landholdings of the dvorianstvo totaled 53.2 million desiatinas, that is, 61.9 percent of the privately owned land in the country. The peasantry suffered from lack of land and from high rents and taxes. Between 1862 and 1901, the peasants formerly belonging to the pomeshchiki paid 1.4 billion rubles in redemption payments (the principal was 867 million rubles), with 400 million rubles still owed to the treasury. Agricultural production rose slowly, and famine became chronic in the countryside—crop failures occurred in 1891,1897,1898, and 1900. Many peasants had no horses or implements. The vestiges of serfdom contributed to the general backwardness of the country and held back the growth of productive forces in both agriculture and industry. Most of the population lived in poverty at a time when the capitalists’ profits were extremely high—ranging from 20 to 60 percent of the fixed capital in textile enterprises. The working class lacked political rights and was subjected to harsh exploitation; for example, the workday was the longest in Europe, wages were low, and there was no occupational safety. The Russian bourgeoisie was drawn to tsarism by the government’s protective policies, such as loans to enterprises and banks, overpayments on government orders, and high customs duties. This fact explains the antidemocratic and counterrevolutionary character of the bourgeoisie.

The economic and social preconditions for a people’s revolution in Russia were ripe by the beginning of the 20th century. The center of the revolutionary movement shifted from Western Europe to Russia, which became the focal point of the contradictions of world imperialism. The fundamental requirement of the country’s social and economic development was the overthrow of the autocracy, which embodied the crudest forms of economic, political, and national oppression.

In the mid-1890’s, the proletarian stage began in the Russian liberation movement, a stage dominated by the ideas of scientific socialism. V. I. Lenin and a group of Marxists organized in 1895 the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, which was an embryonic form of a revolutionary proletarian party. The formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was officially proclaimed at the First Congress of the RSDLP in 1898. A decisive role in the struggle for a proletarian party of a new type was played by Lenin’s newspaper Iskra. The Bolshevik Party, the party of a new type, traces its beginnings to the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, which adopted the program of the RSDLP. The creation of the Bolshevik Party was a turning point in both the Russian and the international workers’ movements (seeBOLSHEVISM). The Bolshevik Party showed to the working people of Russia the path of the revolutionary overthrow of the autocracy and the renewal of the country’s entire social and political structure in preparation for the subsequent advance to a socialist revolution.

Russia became both the motherland of Leninism, which is the highest achievement of the development of Russian culture and the culture of all mankind, and the world center of revolutionary thought and revolutionary action. The ripening of the revolutionary crisis was accelerated by the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. The defeat of tsarism in the war made the situation still more acute. The working class took part in the bourgeois democratic Revolution of 1905–07 under the leadership of the Marxist party. The heroic struggle of the proletariat, which was in the vanguard of the general democratic movement, shook the foundations of the autocracy. Although defeated, the Revolution of 1905–07 was a dress rehearsal for the October Socialist Revolution of 1917. Russia, which in the 19th century had been a bulwark of European reaction, in the early 20th century advanced to the vanguard of the world liberation movement. Under the pressure of the revolution, the autocracy created a representative legislative institution, the State Duma, in 1906. The government of P. A. Stolypin dissolved the Second Duma and created the Third; the policy of this government was one of maneuvering between the pomeshchiki and the bourgeoisie. There began the implementation of the Stolypin Agrarian Reform, in which the autocracy sought support in its struggle against revolution.

The industrial upsurge that began in 1909 brought new growth in capitalist industry, substantial concentration of production, and a strengthening of the economic position of the bourgeoisie. Capitalist agriculture also developed. By the beginning of World War I, Russian imperialism had reached a high level of development. With respect to the level of productive forces, Russia was in a class with France and Japan, but it lagged considerably behind the USA, Great Britain, and Germany. With respect to the degree of concentration of production, Russia occupied first place in the world; in 1914, 56.6 percent of all the country’s workers were employed in enterprises with more than 500 workers. This high degree of concentration contributed to the level of political organization and unity of the Russian proletariat. Monopoly associations grew; there were about 200 large syndicates and cartels. Monopoly capitalism took shape as a system and captured key positions in the country’s economy.

Even at this time, however, the dominance of monopoly capital was not all-embracing. The primary result of Russia’s development in the period of imperialism was the ripening of the economic and political preconditions for a socialist revolution. Class contradictions reached an extreme degree of exacerbation. The driving force of the revolution, the working class, grew and became stronger. In 1913, there were more than 4 million factory and railroad workers; if farmhands and day laborers are counted as well, the army of the proletariat totaled more than 17 million people. Led by the Bolshevik Party, the industrial proletariat had a highly revolutionary character. The working class’s ally was the laboring peasantry, which numbered in the millions and consisted largely of poor peasants. A new upsurge of the revolutionary movement began in 1910. In alliance with the bourgeoisie of the other countries of the Entente, the Russian bourgeoisie pursued its imperialist aims in World War I. The war did much to accelerate the coming of the revolution for which conditions were ripening in Russia. The revolutionary situation that arose in 1916 led to the February Bourgeois Democratic Revolution of 1917, as a result of which the autocracy was overthrown. The victory of the February Revolution marked a turning point in the country’s history. Russia became a bourgeois democratic republic.

Russia in the period of the Great October Socialist Revolution and of the Civil War and Military Intervention, 1917–20. The first, democratic stage of the revolution concluded with the overthrow of tsarism. The economic tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution, however, were not carried out, nor was the question of withdrawal from the imperialist war resolved. Because of the specific conditions then existing, dual power was established: the power of the soviets of workers’, soldiers’, and peasants’ deputies, which appeared in late February and in March 1917 and were the embodiment of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, and the power of the Provisional Government, which was the organ of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and was formed on March 2 (15). The two dictatorships could not exist simultaneously for very long, since the contradictions between them inevitably had to lead to new class struggles for power. The further development of the revolution was inevitable.

The Bolshevik Party, which was headed by Lenin, emerged from the underground in March and by the fall of 1917 had turned into a mass party of the Russian proletariat. The party worked out a specific and theoretically grounded plan of struggle for the transition from bourgeois democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. This plan was embodied in Lenin’s April Theses. Important events in the development of the socialist revolution were the Seventh (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP(B), the April Crisis of 1917, the June Crisis of 1917, the July Days of 1917, the Sixth Congress of the RSDLP(B), and the failure of the Kornilov revolt (seeKORNILOVSHCHINA). By the fall of 1917, all the conditions for the victory of the socialist revolution were ripe. The Bolshevik Party had succeeded in winning over the majority of the working people. It united in one revolutionary stream the socialist movement of the working class, the general democratic movement for peace, the peasant democratic movement for land, and the national liberation movement of the non-Russian peoples for national equality. The main driving force of the revolution was the Russian proletariat.

As a result of the victorious Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, the power of the capitalists and pomeshchiki was overthrown, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established, capitalism was done away with, and social and national oppression was eliminated. Formerly an oppressed and exploited class, the Russian proletariat became the dominant class, and its party, the party of the Communists, became the ruling party. The largest detachment of the Communist Party consisted of Communists of Russian nationality; by 1924, Russians made up 72 percent of the Communists of the USSR. On Oct. 25 (Nov. 7), 1917, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies proclaimed the transfer of all power to the soviets. The congress elected the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (All-Russian CEC) and formed the first workers’ and peasants’ government in history, the government of the Russian Soviet Republic. This government consisted of the Council of People’s Commissars under the chairmanship of Lenin. From November 1917 to March 1919, the chairman of the All-Russian CEC was la. M. Sverdlov, and from March 1919, M. I. Kalinin. After the victory of the socialist revolution in the capital, the triumphal march of Soviet power throughout the country began. In October and November 1917, Soviet power was established in the Central Industrial Region, the Urals, the Volga Region, the Don, Siberia, and the Far East, and in early 1918 it was established in many other regions. The base of the socialist revolution was Central Russia and the industrial and political centers of Petrograd and Moscow. The Russian Republic included all the territory of pre-revolutionary Russia except the lands occupied by the German Army during the imperialist war.

In the very first days, the Second Congress of Soviets, the All-Russian CEC, and the Council of People’s Commissars adopted and published a number of important revolutionary documents, including the Decree on Peace, the Decree on Land, and the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. In the Decree on Peace, Soviet Russia invited all the belligerent countries to begin negotiations for the conclusion of a peace treaty. The Decree on Land nationalized the land, mineral resources, bodies of water, and forests. The millions-strong Russian peasantry received more than 150 million ha of land, free of payment.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which was adopted Nov. 2 (15), 1917, proclaimed the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia; the right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, including secession and the formation of independent states; the abolition of all privileges and restrictions based on ethnic or ethnic-religious distinctions; and the free development of national minorities and ethnic groups inhabiting the territory of Russia. On Nov. 20 (Dec. 3), 1917, the government of the Russian Republic issued an appeal “To All Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East,” which announced the abrogation of unequal treaties and the renunciation of any policy of national oppression. The appeal called on the Muslims to support the gains of the socialist revolution and to establish Soviet power. Translating into reality the basic principles of its national policy, the Russian Republic on Dec. 3 (16), 1917, recognized the Ukraine’s right to self-determination and its right to secede from Russia or to enter into treaty relations with Russia. The Ukrainian SSR was formed on Dec. 12 (25), 1917. The independence of Finland was recognized on Dec. 18(31), 1917. Later, on Aug. 29, 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars issued a decree regarding Poland: tsarist Russia’s treaties of the late 18th century with Austria and Germany on the partition of Poland were abrogated, and the right of the Polish people to an independent existence was recognized.

In a fraternal spirit, the Russian proletariat, especially the workers of Petrograd and Moscow and the industrial cities of Central Russia and the Urals, helped the workers and peasants of the other peoples of the country to establish and consolidate Soviet power and to struggle against counterrevolutionary bourgeois nationalist governments and White Guard revolts. In January and February 1918, the working people of the Ukraine and Northern Caucasus, aided by Russian workers and the sailors of the Baltic Fleet, defeated the counterrevolutionary revolt of Ataman Kaledin (see KALEDIN REVOLT), rid the Donbas, Don Region, and Northern Caucasus of White Guard bands, and drove out the bourgeois nationalist Central Rada. In December 1917 and January 1918, Red Guard detachments from Petrograd and the Urals smashed the White Guard revolt of Ataman Dutov in the Urals (seeDUTOV REVOLT).

As the state system of the bourgeoisie and pomeshchiki was done away with, the state machinery of the soviets was created, strengthened, and improved; the soviets were the governing bodies expressing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The country’s inhabitants began calling themselves citizens of the Russian Republic. Fundamental transformations were also carried out in the economic sphere, where the groundwork for the socialist economy was laid. The socialist transformations required an enormous amount of revolutionary creative energy of the workers and the laboring peasantry.

The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, held Jan. 10–18 (23–31), 1918, was of great significance for the further strengthening of Soviet power. The congress adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People, which later became part of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, and the decree On the Federal Institutions of the Russian Republic; Russia was proclaimed the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR). All power in the capital and in the provinces was declared to belong to the soviets. The RSFSR was established on the basis of a free union of peoples as a federation of Soviet national republics.

On Mar. 3, 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR concluded the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany. By withdrawing from the imperialist war, the RSFSR was able to concentrate its resources on the economic-management and constructive tasks of the socialist revolution. After the October Revolution, the Soviet state took over the banks, state factories, and railroads. The nationalization of monopoly enterprises, transportation systems, and private banks began in November 1917. In the first half of 1918, hundreds of large industrial enterprises were nationalized in Petrograd, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Kolomna, and Groznyi and in many cities of the Urals. In the remaining enterprises, workers’ control was instituted. On June 28, 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR adopted a decree on the socialization of all large-scale industry (by the end of the Civil War, Soviet power in the RSFSR—excluding the Far East—had control of more than 30,500 industrial enterprises, which employed more than 83 percent of the republic’s industrial and office workers). The first sovkhozes and kolkhozes appeared in the countryside. Thus, the government of the RSFSR quickly gained possession of the key points of the national economy.

The Soviet government undertook the rehabilitation of the national economy, which had been devastated by the imperialist war; special efforts were devoted to transportation. Tasks of paramount importance were the development of a new, Soviet class-conscious discipline, the introduction of strict nationwide accounting and checking procedures in the production and distribution of goods in order to effect the planned management of the economy, the raising of labor productivity, the organization of socialist competition, and the waging of a resolute struggle against petit bourgeois elements. Lenin worked out a plan for the construction of the foundations of the socialist economy and developed specific paths and methods for the socialist transformation of Russia. The measures carried out between October 1917 and July 1918 fundamentally undermined the economic power of the bourgeoisie and considerably strengthened Soviet power. At the same time, the socialist revolution advanced in the countryside. The land of the pomeshchiki and other private owners was confiscated in the winter of 1918 and divided among the peasants in the following spring. The redistribution of the land of the pomeshchiki was carried out by the poor peasants, who demanded that the holdings of the kulaks be reduced as well. Class conflicts arose between the poor peasants and the kulaks.

The struggle with the kulaks, who refused to sell grain to the state, assumed extremely serious forms. In the spring of 1918, famine struck Petrograd, Moscow, and the central industrial provinces. The Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR was forced to establish a dictatorship over foodstuffs in the country; speculation in grain was punished mercilessly. In May 1918, armed food appropriation detachments were formed from the workers of Petrograd, Moscow, Tula, and Ivanovo-Voznesensk to find and confiscate the kulaks’ grain surpluses. In June, the organization of the committees of the poor began; these committees played an important role in the advance of the socialist revolution in the countryside (seeCOMMITTEES OF THE POOR).

The establishment of state systems for the peoples inhabiting the RSFSR began in the spring of 1918. The government of the RSFSR had already set up a special body to deal with the problems of the non-Russian peoples—the People’s Commissariat of Nationalities. An important leadership role was played among the peoples of the borderlands by the extraordinary commissars from the central government. The first state formations within the RSFSR were established. The establishment of the Terek Soviet Republic was proclaimed on Mar. 4, 1918, in Piatigorsk at the Second Congress of Soviets of the peoples of Terek Ob-last. The Tauride Socialist Republic’s formation was proclaimed on March 21 at the Extraordinary Congress of the Soviets of Tauride Province. The Don Soviet Republic was formed on March 23 by a decree of the military revolutionary committee of Don Oblast. The Turkestan ASSR was officially established on April 30 in Tashkent at the Fifth Congress of the Soviets of Turkestan Krai. The formation of the Kuban’-Black Sea Soviet Republic was proclaimed by the Third Congress of the Soviets of the Kuban’ and the Black Sea Region, held in Ek-aterinodar from May 27 to May 30. On July 7 the First Congress of the Soviets of the Northern Caucasus established the Northern Caucasus Soviet Republic, which included the Kuban’-Black Sea Soviet Republic and the Terek Soviet Republic.

On July 10, 1918, the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets adopted the first Soviet constitution, the Constitution of the RSFSR. The constitution officially established the RSFSR as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The first genuinely democratic constitution in the world, it guaranteed the toiling masses participation in the administration of the state. The adoption of the Constitution of the RSFSR concluded the first period of the establishment of the Soviet state and social system. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 was the model for the constitutions of the fraternal Soviet republics.

The summer of 1918 saw the unfolding of the Civil War and Military Intervention of 1918–20. The RSFSR was ringed by hostile fronts. Supported by financial, military, and political aid from the Entente, the counterrevolutionary forces formed White Guard armies under the leadership of the tsarist generals M. V. Alekseev, A. V. Kolchak, A. I. Denikin, and P. N. Wran-gel. The counterrevolutionary forces occupied the Northern Caucasus, the Don Region, Siberia, the Urals, and part of the Volga Region. In the North, Anglo-American troops occupied Murmansk and Arkhangel’sk. The Far East and Siberia were invaded by American, British, French, and Japanese forces. German troops occupied Byelorussia, the Ukraine, and the Crimea. A large part of the territory of the RSFSR was taken by the White Guards and interventionists. Central Russia was cut off from the regions that were its principal suppliers of food, raw materials, and fuel. The Communist Party roused the proletariat and the laboring peasantry to the struggle against the foreign invaders and the White Guards. A regular Red Army was created. To provide leadership at the front and on the home front and to mobilize all resources for the defense of the republic, the Council of Workers’ and Peasants’ Defense, headed by Lenin, was established on Nov. 30, 1918. With the aim of achieving victory over the enemy, the Central Committee of the RCP(B) and the Council of Peoples’ Commissars of the RSFSR implemented a series of emergency political and economic measures, which received the name “War Communism.”

In 1919 the RSFSR extended military, financial, and political aid to the insurgent workers and peasants of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic Region for the purpose of expelling the German invaders and White Guards and reestablishing Soviet power. On Jan. 1, 1919, the formation of the Byelorussian SSR was proclaimed. The Russian people helped the Byelorussian people to create their own state system. Soviet power was restored in the Baltic Region, and the Lithuanian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Estonian SSR were formed. The war against the Entente interventionists and the White Guard armies continued. During the Civil War the RSFSR and its fraternal Soviet republics entered into a voluntary military and political federation. On June 1, 1919, the All-Russian CEC issued a decree on the military alliance of the RSFSR, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Byelorussia for the struggle against the foe.

Through great exertions of their military, financial, and spiritual resources, the Russian working class and laboring peasantry, led by the Communist Party and assisted by the other peoples of the country, smashed the forces of the interventionists and the domestic counterrevolution. The RSFSR not only maintained its state independence but aided its fraternal republics in their struggle against the common foe. On May 20, 1920, the Fourth All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets expressed its gratitude to the Russian people in its decree On State Relations Between the Ukrainian SSR and the RSFSR, which stated that the Ukraine could not have become free again without the help of the RSFSR. The Baltic Region, which had been captured by the enemy in the course of the Civil War, was not liberated, and bourgeois governments were established there. Between 1919 and 1921 the Russian people helped the peoples of Kazakhstan, Middle Asia, and Transcaucasia to expel the interventionists and White Guard governments, to establish and consolidate Soviet power, and to form new Soviet republics. In Middle Asia, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic was formed on Apr. 26, 1920, and the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic on Oct. 8, 1920. In Transcaucasia, the Azerbaijan SSR was formed on Apr. 28, 1920, the Armenian SSR on Nov. 29, 1920, and the Georgian SSR on Feb. 25, 1921. In 1922, G. K. Ordzhonikidze stated: “The toiling masses of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are deeply indebted to Russia for the existence of Soviet power and for their liberation. If it were not for Soviet Russia, there would be no Soviet Azerbaijan, Soviet Georgia, or Soviet Armenia, and these three would today be under the heel of English imperialism” (Stat’i i rechi, vol. 1, 1956, p. 261). On Oct. 25, 1922, the Red Army and the army of the Far East Republic, which had separated from the RSFSR in April 1920, liberated Vladivostok and drove the Japanese occupiers and White Guards from the Primor’e region.

The development of the state system of the Russian Federation continued during the Civil War and was completed after the war. The non-Russian peoples who joined the RSFSR organized their own governments with the help of the Russian people. Lenin wrote: “We have granted all the non-Russian nationalities their own republics or autonomous regions” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 44, p. 146). The autonomous regional units formed within the RSFSR and their dates of formation are as follows: the Bashkir ASSR, Mar. 23, 1919; the Tatar ASSR, May 27, 1920; the Karelian Labor Commune, June 8, 1920 (became the Karelian ASSR on July 25, 1923); the Chuvash Autonomous Oblast, June 24, 1920; the Kirghiz ASSR, Aug. 26, 1920 (became the Kazakh ASSR in 1925); the Votyak (Udmurt) Autonomous Oblast, Nov. 4, 1920; the Mari Autonomous Oblast, Nov. 4, 1920; the Kalmyk Autonomous Oblast, Nov. 4, 1920; the Gortsy ASSR, Jan. 20, 1921 (reorganized in July 1924); the Dagestan ASSR, Jan. 20, 1921; the Komi (Zyri-an) Autonomous Oblast, Aug. 22, 1921; the Kabarda Autonomous Oblast, Sept. 1, 1921 (transformed into the Kabarda-Bal-kar Autonomous Oblast on Jan. 16, 1922); the Crimean ASSR, Oct. 18, 1921; the Buriat-Mongolian Autonomous Oblast, Jan. 9, 1922 (transformed into the Buriat-Mongolian ASSR on May 30, 1923); the Yakut ASSR, Apr. 27, 1922; the Oirot Autonomous Oblast, June 1, 1922; the Cherkess (Adygei) Autonomous Oblast, July 27, 1922; the Chechen Autonomous Oblast, Nov. 30, 1922; and the Karachai-Cherkess Autonomous Oblast, Jan. 12, 1922. The autonomous units that were formed were made official by legislative acts of the All-Russian CEC and the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR. In these actions the Soviet government was guided by the will of the peoples.

Considerable effort was expended in defining the territories of the autonomous units. In each case, the language of the indigenous people was introduced into government and public institutions, and government bodies were staffed by representatives of the indigenous population who knew the customs of the people and enjoyed the people’s trust.

In implementing its Leninist national policy, the Communist Party waged a persistent struggle against such deviations on the nationality question as great-power chauvinism and local nationalism. Soviet power was strengthened and the fraternal union and mutual trust of the peoples of the RSFSR were consolidated through the use of native languages in local administrative offices, sociopolitical institutions, cultural organizations, educational institutions, courts, and the press.

The large area of the RSFSR that remained outside the autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and national okrugs was inhabited primarily by Russians. Russians exercised their national rights directly through the organs of the RSFSR.

The cultural revolution began immediately after the October Revolution of 1917. A revolutionary reorganization of the entire system of public education took place between 1917 and 1921. A new, simplified Russian orthography was introduced, and the eradication of illiteracy and semiliteracy was begun. On Jan. 24 (Feb. 6), 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars decreed the replacement of the Julian calendar by the Gregorian calendar as of Feb. 1 (14), 1918 (See CALENDAR). Science was put in the service of the people for the creation of a socialist society. In the very first days of Soviet power, progressive democratic representatives of science actively joined in the construction of the new life. More than 200 scientists took part in the compilation of the plan for the State Commission for the Electrification of Russia (seeGOELRO PLAN). The October Revolution initiated the creation of Soviet Russian and multinational literature and art in the RSFSR.

The establishment of national autonomous regional units had several positive results: the non-Russian peoples saw their age-old aspirations for their own national state systems satisfied, the peoples’ economic, political, and cultural development was advanced, and the way was cleared for the elimination of the former backwardness of the peoples oppressed by tsarism. Two acts of particularly great importance for the development of the new national entities were the adoption of the Program of the RCP(B) by the Eighth Congress of the RCP(B) in March 1919 and the adoption by the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) in March 1921 of the resolution On the Party’s Present Tasks Concerning the Nationality Problem.

Socialist construction in the RSFSR, 1921–40. The domestic situation of the RSFSR after the war was extremely difficult. Most enterprises were idle because of the lack of raw materials and fuel. If the Far East and what is now Kazakhstan are excluded, factory output was 4.6 times greater in 1913 than in 1921. The railroad system was in a chaotic state and had been partly destroyed. The textile industry produced 23 times more cloth in 1913 than in 1921. Agricultural output in 1921 was only about 50 percent of the prewar production, and the number of factory workers was less than half the number in 1913; the RSFSR, excluding Kazakhstan and the Far East, had 1.85 million factory workers in 1913 and 838,600 in 1921. Geographically, industry had been unevenly distributed before the war; the economic chaos now made the distribution even more uneven. Economic ties were disrupted, and the exchange of products between many regions decreased. The country’s economy was of a mixed nature. There predominated small-scale commodity production by independent producers who owned the means of production. In 1920 the RSFSR, excluding the Crimea, Dagestan, Kazakhstan, Turkestan, and the Far East, had 12.5 million private peasant farms.

An important role in the preparation and development of measures for the transition to peacetime economic construction was played by the Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held Dec. 22–29, 1920. The congress approved the measures of the government of the RSFSR for the restoration of the national economy and ratified Lenin’s GOELRO plan for the electrification of Russia. In March 1921 the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) adopted the historic decision to implement the New

Economic Policy (NEP), which created the conditions for the restoration of the national economy and for the construction of the foundation of a socialist economy. In 1922 the Kashira State Regional Electric Power Plant was put into service, and work continued on the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant. Construction of the Shatura and Balakhna state regional power plants began. The RSFSR was divided into economic regions in accordance with the GOELRO plan.

A currency reform was carried out that put an end to inflation and improved the exchange rate of the ruble. Government bodies were restructured and strengthened. In 1922 and 1923, a unified judicial system was created, and the main law codes, including the labor, land, and civil codes, were adopted and published. The restoration of the national economy took place under extremely difficult conditions. Heavy industry revived slowly. In the summer of 1921, famine struck as a result of crop failures. Drought afflicted one-third of the agricultural land, primarily the Volga Region. The government of the RSFSR took the necessary steps to combat the famine and epidemics.

The other Soviet republics received considerable aid from the RSFSR for the restoration of their economies. In order to restore the Donbas, skilled specialists were dispatched and equipment and funds were sent to the Ukrainian SSR. The Armenian SSR was allocated 70 million gold rubles for the purchase of workstock in Iran. The Azerbaijan SSR received 800,000 gold rubles for irrigation projects in the Mugan Steppe and 600,000 poods of grain, and the Turkestan ASSR received 2 million poods. The Tatar ASSR was sent 8.3 million poods of grain and more than 1 million poods of potatoes. Printing plants and textile mills, among other enterprises, were transferred from a number of RSFSR cities to Transcaucasia and Middle Asia; various types of equipment were also sent.

Until the formation of the USSR, the government of the RSFSR was in effect the central government of a federation of Soviet republics. The other Soviet republics—the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, the Georgian SSR, the Armenian SSR, and the Azerbaijan SSR—had representatives on the All-Russian CEC and in the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR and took part in the Congresses of Soviets of the RSFSR. In December 1921 the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets adopted the decree On Soviet Construction, which expanded the All-Russian CEC to 386 persons through the inclusion of national representatives. The republics entrusted the government of the RSFSR with the right to represent their interests abroad. For its part, the government of the Russian Federation respected the sovereign rights of the other republics; in conducting foreign policy it did not resolve a single question concerning these republics without the republics’ consent and participation. Implementing the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist states, the government of the RSFSR between 1920 and 1922 concluded treaties with the Baltic states and with Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and other countries.

During the period of peaceful construction, the treaty of military alliance concluded by the Soviet republics in 1919 in the course of the Civil War was supplemented by treaties of economic alliance. The Workers’ and Peasants’ Treaty of Alliance Between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR was concluded on Dec. 28, 1920; it provided for the unification of the military and economic commissariats of the two republics. A similar treaty was signed by the RSFSR and the Byelorussian SSR on Jan. 16, 1921. The RSFSR also concluded a treaty of alliance with the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic on Sept. 13, 1920, with the Azerbaijan SSR on Sept. 30, 1920, with the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic on Mar. 4, 1921, with the Georgian SSR on May 21, 1921, and with the Armenian SSR on Sept. 30, 1921. On Feb. 22, 1922, a protocol was signed by which eight fraternal republics—the Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Azerbaijan, Armenian, Georgian, Bukhara, Khorezm, and Far East republics—conveyed to the RSFSR the right to represent them at the Genoa Conference of 1922.

The confidence reposed in the Russian people by the previously oppressed nations and nationalities was strengthened by a number of factors: the joint struggle against foreign and domestic counterrevolution, the common tasks of the restoration of the national economy and the construction of socialism, defense and foreign policy needs, and the disinterested aid extended by the Russian people to the other peoples of Russia in the elimination of the political and economic inequality inherited from tsarism. These factors gave rise to a mass social movement in all the Soviet republics for the establishment of a union, a single state. The Tenth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held Dec. 23–27,1922, supported this movement and recognized the timeliness of the unification of the Soviet republics into a single state. On Dec. 30, 1922, the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR was held; the congress proclaimed the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Initially, the USSR included the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, and the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. The RSFSR was the nucleus around which the multinational socialist state, the USSR, was formed and grew strong. The creation of the USSR contributed to the rapid restoration of the economy of the RSFSR and the other Union republics.

In 1924 and 1925, the territories of the Turkestan, Bukhara, and Khorezm republics were reorganized along ethnic lines (seeNATIONAL-STATE DEMARCATION OF THE SOVIET REPUBLICS OF MIDDLE ASIA). As a result, the Uzbek SSR and the Turkmen SSR were formed. In addition, the Tadzhik ASSR was established as part of the Uzbek SSR, the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast (renamed the Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast on May 25, 1925) was created within the RSFSR, and the Kara-Kalpak Autonomous Oblast was formed within the Kazakh ASSR. In order to further the economic and cultural development of the small nationalities of the North, the Committee for Assistance to the Nationalities of the Outlying Northern Regions (the Committee of the North) was created on June 20, 1924. The Volga German ASSR was formed on Dec. 19, 1924, the Chuvash SSR on Apr. 21, 1925, the Ingush Autonomous Oblast on July 7, 1924, the Severnaia Osetiia Autonomous Oblast on July 7, 1924, the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast on Jan. 2, 1925, and the Karachai Autonomous Oblast in 1926. The Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast was transformed into the Kirghiz SSR on Feb. 1, 1926. Between 1924 and 1926 the government of the RSFSR voluntarily transferred to the Byelorussian SSR sizable territories where the majority of the population was Byelorussian. At the beginning of 1925, the RSFSR included, in addition to provinces, nine autonomous republics and 15 autonomous ob-lasts. On May 11, 1925, the Twelfth All-Russian Congress of Soviets ratified a new constitution of the RSFSR, which had been written on the basis of the Constitution of the USSR of 1924. Authority was transferred from the highest government bodies of the RSFSR to the USSR in a number of areas, including foreign relations, railroad transport, communications, military affairs, and foreign trade, and the USSR took over such functions as the establishment of the monetary and credit system.

Between 1925 and 1927, the national economy of the RSFSR reached its prewar level. At the end of 1925, the socialist sector’s share of industry was 81 percent. The implementation of Lenin’s cooperative plan was under way. The first centers of socialist agriculture arose between 1918 and 1925. In 1925 there were more than 2,840 sovkhozes, covering 918,000 desiatinas of land, and more than 9,280 kolkhozes, covering 640,000 desiatinas of land. Most of the republic’s peasants, however, were private farmers who carried on semisubsistence farming; such peasants had more than 16 million farms, with 65.8 million desiatinas of land under crops.

The RSFSR was still experiencing serious difficulties, and unemployment was still high in the cities.

Implementing its Leninist plan for the construction of socialism, the Communist Party adopted, at the Fourteenth Congress of the ACP(B) in 1925, a policy of industrialization and, at the Fifteenth Congress in 1927, a policy of the collectivization of agriculture. The RSFSR played a leading and decisive role in carrying out these policies. The Communists of the RSFSR took an active part in the struggle against Trotskyism and the right-wing deviation in the ACP(B), which were attempting to turn the party away from its Leninist general course. A large number of new industrial regions were established around the industrial centers of the RSFSR—Moscow, Leningrad, Tula, Ivanovo, Gorky, Saratov, Kuibyshev, Stalingrad (now Volgograd), Rostov, Groznyi, and cities of the Urals, including Sverdlovsk. In May 1929 the Fourteenth All-Russian Congress of Soviets approved the first five-year plan. The plan guided the development of the national economy and the social and cultural construction of the RSFSR from 1929 to 1932 and was an important part of the five-year plan for the USSR as a whole.

During the period of the first five-year plan, many large plants began operation, including metallurgical, automotive, tractor, machine-building, and chemical plants. Among the first fruits of the five-year plan were the Stalingrad Tractor Works and the Rostov Agricultural Machinery Plant. Hundreds of new enterprises were constructed, including the Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Combine, the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Combine, the Urals Machine-building Plant, the Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant, the Gorky Automotive Plant, the Saratov Combine Plant, the Moscow Ball-bearing Plant, and the Berezniki Chemical Combine. A total of 1,100 large industrial enterprises began operation in the RSFSR during the period of the five-year plan. The Russian working class set brilliant examples of heroic labor and was the initiator of many forms of mass socialist emulation, such as the shock-worker movement, production and financial counterplans (seeCOUNTERPLAN), and the use of the slogan “The five-year plan in four years!”

Unemployment was eliminated by the end of 1930. The number of industrial and office workers in 1932 was 16.5 million. In 1929 and 1930 the peasants began entering kolkhozes on a large scale. In 1928, 1.6 percent of the peasant households of the RSFSR were in kolkhozes (the figure was 1.7 percent for the USSR); in 1929, 3.8 percent; and in 1930, about 21 percent—the figure reached 50–60 percent in the main grain regions of the republic. The class struggle was exacerbated as socialist construction proceeded in the cities and the countryside. In the cities, the socialist sector supplanted the petite bourgeoisie. As a result of the wholesale collectivization, the kulaks were eliminated as a class. In the course of the first five-year plan, the economic foundation of socialism was laid. Formerly an agricultural country, the Russian Federation became an industrial and agricultural country. The socialist system became the only system in industry and the dominant system in agriculture.

The technical reconstruction of all branches of the economy was essentially completed between 1933 and 1937, the period of the second five-year plan. Approximately 2,900 large industrial enterprises began operation in the RSFSR, including such areas as the Tatar ASSR, the Bashkir ASSR, the Karelian ASSR, the Chuvash ASSR, and the Mari ASSR. Construction was started on the huge enterprises of the Urals-Kuznetsk Coal and Metallurgical Combine, and the Baltic-White Sea Canal and Moscow Canal went into service. The industrial output of the RSFSR became more than six times greater than in 1913. The RSFSR’s share of the output of the USSR in 1937 was as follows: cast iron, 36.4 percent; steel, 50.6 percent; tractors, 79.1 percent; grain-harvesting combines, 59.4 percent; woolen fabrics, 88 percent; cotton, 96 percent; and motor vehicles, 100 percent.

Industrial construction stimulated an increase in urban population, especially in such cities as Moscow, Leningrad, Gorky, Sverdlovsk, Cheliabinsk, Novosibirsk, and Stalingrad. New cities arose—for example, Magnitogorsk, Novomoskovsk, Novokuznetsk, Dzerzhinsk, Kemerovo, Prokop’evsk, Komso-mol’sk-na-Amure, Leninsk-Kuznetskii, Kopeisk, Kiselevsk, Elektrostal’, and Magadan.

The kolkhoz system became firmly entrenched: as of July 1, 1937, the kolkhozes had 92.6 percent of the peasant households and occupied 99.4 percent of the cultivated land. The RSFSR was the primary source of grain for the USSR. At the end of 1937, agriculture in the RSFSR had at its disposal 291,000 tractors, 89,000 grain-harvesting combines, and 83,200 trucks. The Russian countryside now presented a new face; the former poverty and ignorance had disappeared. To a considerable degree, the way of life, mores, and psychology of the peasantry had changed. Of great importance in the fulfillment of the five-year plan ahead of schedule was the movement of production innovators—the Stakhanovite movement—which arose in the Ukraine in 1935 and spread throughout the RSFSR and the entire country.

Over the period of the first two five-year plans, a socialist society was essentially built in the RSFSR, as it was throughout the country. Some peoples of the RSFSR, especially certain northern peoples, arrived at socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development.

The socialist reorganization of the national economy required the rapid development of science, technology, and art. A large number of engineers of all specialties were trained in a short time. Science established close ties with practice in socialist construction. A new, Soviet multinational literature emerged in the 1920’s and developed rapidly, particularly in the 1930’s. Many peoples acquired their own writing systems only under Soviet power. The use of native languages in teaching and the emergence of national literatures contributed to the formation of national intelligentsias. Russian art also developed along the path of socialist realism. Thus, the cultural revolution was successfully carried out in the course of socialist construction.

Further national-state construction was carried out in the RSFSR. Between 1923 and 1930 a new system of territorial division was introduced: instead of the old provinces, uezdy (districts), and volosti (small rural districts), the new system used oblasts, krais, and raions. By the beginning of 1931, the RSFSR included 14 krais and oblasts, 11 autonomous republics, 14 autonomous oblasts, and 2,085 raions. The Mordovian Autonomous Oblast was formed on Jan. 10, 1930; the Khakass Autonomous Oblast was established on Oct. 20, 1930; and eight national okrugs of small northern nationalities were created in December 1930. Characteristic of national-state construction of this period was the transition from lower forms of autonomy to higher forms: from autonomous oblast to autonomous republic and from autonomous republic to Union republic. For example, the following became autonomous republics: the Kara-Kalpak Autonomous Oblast on Mar. 20, 1932, the Mordovian Autonomous Oblast on Dec. 20, 1934, and the Udmurt (Votyak) Autonomous Oblast on Dec. 28, 1934. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was created on May 7, 1934. The Komi ASSR, Mari ASSR, Severnaia Osetiia ASSR, Kabarda-Balkar ASSR, and Chechen-Ingush ASSR were established on Dec. 5, 1936.

Socialist construction brought an end to inequality in the development of the economies and cultures of the peoples of the RSFSR. During the period of the first five-year plan, industrial output rose by a factor of 2 in the old industrial regions and by a factor of 3.5 in the national republics and oblasts. Over the same period, the number of industrial and office workers increased 2.4 times in Middle Asia and 1.6 times in the old industrial regions, which consisted of Moscow Oblast, Leningrad Oblast, Gorky Krai, and Ivanovo Oblast. The increase in appropriations for social and cultural measures in the autonomous republics exceeded the increase in appropriations for the RSFSR as a whole; for example, the increase was 642 percent in the Kirghiz ASSR, 405.3 percent in the Chuvash ASSR, and 390.6 percent in the Bashkir ASSR.

With the aid of the Russian people, fundamental economic and cultural changes took place in all the national republics and oblasts during the periods of the first two five-year plans. Thus, the gross output of large-scale industry was much greater in 1937 than in 1913; for example, it was 8.2 times greater in the Tatar ASSR, 7.3 times greater in the Bashkir ASSR, almost 19 times greater in the Severnaia Osetiia ASSR, 12 times greater in the Udmurt ASSR, 14 times greater in the Buriat-Mongolian ASSR, 15 times greater in the Yakut ASSR, 86 times greater in the Kabarda-Balkar ASSR, 7 times greater in the Dagestan ASSR, and 9 times greater in the Chechen-Ingush ASSR.

Socialist construction brought about the consolidation into socialist nations of such peoples of the RSFSR as the Russians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Chechens, Kabardins, Mordovians, Mari, Udmurts, Komi, and Yakuts. The moral and political unity of the Soviet people developed as the republic’s national economy underwent the socialist transformation and as changes took place in the social character of the working class, the peasantry, and the intelligentsia.

The Extraordinary Seventeenth All-Russian Congress of Soviets on Jan. 21, 1937, ratified a new constitution of the RSFSR, which reflected the victory of socialism in the country. The constitution was drafted on the basis of the Constitution of the USSR that had been adopted on Dec. 5, 1936. In accordance with the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1937, constitutions of the autonomous republics were drafted and adopted by the respective congresses of soviets; they were then ratified by the third session of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, which met from May 28 to June 2, 1940. The Kazakh ASSR and the Kirghiz ASSR were separated from the RSFSR on Dec. 5, 1936, and were made Union republics in the USSR. On Mar. 31, 1940, the Karelian ASSR was removed from the RSFSR and transformed into the Karelian-Finnish SSR. The security of the northwestern oblasts of the RSFSR was ensured by the establishment of a new border under the terms of the Soviet-Finnish Treaty of 1940, which ended the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939–40. The Karelian Isthmus, including the city of Vyborg, was incorporated into Leningrad Oblast. The Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, and Estonian SSR were formed along the northwestern border of the RSFSR in mid-1940; at their request, they were accepted into the USSR in early August 1940.

By prewar 1940 the RSFSR had made outstanding progress in the development of its economy as a result of its fulfillment of the targets of the first, second, and, in part, third (from 1938) five-year plans. The number of industrial and office workers had risen to 22.2 million in that year from 7.7 million in 1913. Some examples of comparative output figures follow: cast iron, 5.3 million tons in 1940 and 1.3 million tons in 1913; steel, 9.3 million tons in 1940 and 1.8 million tons in 1913; coal, 72.8 million tons in 1940 and 6 million tons in 1913; oil, 7 million tons in 1940 and 1.3 million tons in 1913; and electricity, 30.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1940 and 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours in 1913.

The average annual growth of the industrial output of the RSFSR was 16.5 percent from 1930 to 1940. The total industrial output was 8.7 times greater in 1940 than in 1913, and the output of the machine-building and metalworking industries was 35 times greater. The gross output of the large-scale industry of the Urals was 14 times greater in 1940 than in 1913, and that of Western Siberia was 32 times greater. Such formerly agricultural areas as the Central Chernozem Region, the Volga Region, the Don, the Northern Caucasus, and the Far East were industrialized; the industrial development of the North was begun. The length of the railroads in the RSFSR increased from 39,000 km in 1913 to 59,000 km in 1940. A beginning was made on the development of the Northern Sea Route. Examples of the RSFSR’s share of the total output of the USSR follow: cast iron, 35 percent; steel, more than 50 percent; and coal, 44 percent. Over the first three and a half years of the third five-year plan, 1,700 large enterprises went into operation in the RSFSR. The industry of the RSFSR played an important role in strengthening the defensive capacity of the USSR.

RSFSR during the Great Patriotic War, 1941–45. June 22, 1941, marked the beginning of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against fascist Germany. By the autumn of 1941, the enemy had succeeded in blockading Leningrad and in advancing to the immediate vicinities of Moscow and Rostov-on-Don. Great battles were fought in the Smolensk and Moscow areas and around Leningrad, Sevastopol’, and Tula. The enemy suffered its first important defeat of World War II in the battle of Moscow of 1941–42. A mass partisan movement developed in the occupied territory. As a result of a new offensive, the enemy reached the Volga by the autumn of 1942 and captured parts of the Northern Caucasus. Major battles took place on the territory of the RSFSR. A turning point of the Great Patriotic War and of World War II was marked by three defeats of the fascist armies: in the battle of Stalingrad of 1942–43, in the Northern Caucasus, and then in the battle of Kursk of 1943. The expulsion of the fascist armies from the USSR began. On May 8, 1945, fascist Germany surrendered unconditionally.

The working class, peasantry, and intelligentsia of Russia, under the leadership of the CPSU, made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascism. In 1941 and 1942 industrial enterprises and millions of people were evacuated from areas near the front to the East. The Urals, Western Siberia, the Volga Region, the Far East, and other regions of the RSFSR served as arsenals for the Soviet forces. The Urals provided about 40 percent of the entire output of the war industry. Between 1941 and 1945, 7,800 enterprises were built or restored in the republic. The industry of the RSFSR produced 80 percent of the entire industrial output of the USSR. New deposits of, for example, iron ore, nonferrous metals, oil, bauxites, and other minerals were found in the Urals, Siberia, and the Volga Region. Techniques were devised for the high-speed smelting of metal, especially high-grade steel. Scientists, designers, and engineers developed warplanes, tanks, artillery, automatic weapons, and rocket launchers that surpassed those of the foe.

More than 2,373,000 servicemen from the RSFSR were awarded orders and medals for heroism displayed on the field of battle. More than 7,000 of the 11,000 Heroes of the Soviet Union were Russian (data for 1945). History has recognized the exploits of such heroes as A. M. Matrosov, Z. A. Kosmodem’-ianskaia, N. I. Kuznetsov, N. F. Gastello, Iu. V. Smirnov, E. I. Chaikina, and D. M. Karbyshev.

The brunt of the struggle against fascist Germany and its allies was borne primarily by the Russian people, who produced outstanding military commanders. Russian soldiers and officers made up a large part of the armed forces of the USSR. The Russian people, along with the other peoples of the country, preserved the achievements of socialism in the battle against fascism.

Several territories were ceded to the USSR and included in the RSFSR after the conclusion of the Great Patriotic War. Pe-chenga Oblast was received under the peace treaty signed with Finland in 1944. The southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands were obtained as a result of the Yalta Conference of 1945. The Potsdam Conference of 1945 transferred to the USSR the northern part of East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad Oblast of the RSFSR.

During the occupation, the fascist Germans completely or partly destroyed 12,150 industrial enterprises and 13,000 km of railroads. They ravaged and plundered more than 52,800 kolkhozes, 860 sovkhozes, and 1,330 machine-tractor stations and destroyed or removed to Germany 46,000 tractors, 18,000 harvesters, and more than 16 million head of cattle. They burned or demolished 2,977,000 buildings, leaving more than 11 million people homeless; 17,300 schools, 6,700 hospitals, and 208 theaters and museums were destroyed. In the prices of those years, the total direct damage inflicted on the economy and citizens of the RSFSR amounted to 249 billion rubles; the figure for the entire USSR was 679 billion rubles.

RSFSR in 1946–74. The industry of the RSFSR that had been destroyed by the war was restored by the end of 1950. Industrial output at this time was 75 percent greater than the prewar level of 1940. Approximately 3,700 large industrial enterprises were built or raised from ruins. In accordance with decisions of the Soviet government, construction was completed first in the 15 old Russian cities of Smolensk, Viaz’ma, Pskov, Novgorod, Kalinin, Velikie Luki, Orel, Briansk, Kursk, Voronezh, Rostov-on-Don, Novorossiisk, Sevastopol’, Krasnodar, and Murmansk. The Russian people and the other peoples of Russia carried out the heroic feat of restoration of the regions, industrial and oil centers (Groznyi, Maikop), cities, kolkhozes, and sovkhozes that had been destroyed by the enemy. The RSFSR provided considerable assistance in the recovery and development of the economies of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, and the Baltic republics.

The 1950’s saw a further upsurge in the socialist economy of the RSFSR. Between 1951 and 1955, 1,900 large industrial enterprises began operation, and the gross output of industry increased by 79 percent. Economic well-being also improved, and the cultural level of the peoples of the RSFSR rose.

The RSFSR was awarded the Order of Lenin on May 29, 1954, in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the reunification of the Ukraine with Russia and in recognition of the outstanding progress made by the peoples of the RSFSR in state, economic, and cultural construction. The Crimea was transferred by the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954.

The Karelian ASSR, which had been formed from the Karelian-Finnish SSR, entered the RSFSR in July 1956. The Kalmyk Autonomous Oblast and the Chechen-Ingush ASSR, which had been abolished in 1943 and 1944, respectively, were reestablished in the RSFSR in 1957; on July 29, 1958, the Kalmyk Autonomous Oblast became the Kalmyk ASSR. Also in 1957, the Kabarda ASSR was transformed into the Kabarda-Balkar ASSR, and the Cherkess Autonomous Oblast into the Karachai-Cherkess Autonomous Oblast. The Tuva ASSR was formed in 1961 from the Tuva Autonomous Oblast, which had been created from the Tuva People’s Republic when it joined the USSR in 1944.

In postwar socialist construction, the peoples of the RSFSR made great progress in economic and cultural development. The RSFSR was awarded a second Order of Lenin on Nov. 5, 1958, for the success of the republic’s working people in increasing the output of such agricultural products as grain and sugar beets. The victory of socialism was complete and final in the RSFSR, as throughout the USSR. The peoples of the Russian Federation and of the USSR as a whole entered the period of a developed socialist society.

In the 1960’s, the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia of the RSFSR, in close cooperation with the other republics of the USSR, undertook the implementation of the new Program of the CPSU adopted in 1961 by the Twenty-second Congress of the CPSU. A start was made on the creation of the material and technical basis for communism.

In 1967 the Soviet people celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. A review was made of the historic victories gained under the leadership of the Communist Party. The gross output of the industry of the RSFSR in 1967 was 74 times greater than in 1913 and 8.5 times greater than in 1940. In 1967 the industry of the RSFSR produced as much in three days as prerevolutionary Russia produced in a year. The RSFSR provided two-thirds of the country’s industrial output. Since the Russian Federation had marched in the front ranks of the builders of socialism and had provided much fraternal aid to the other republics, on Dec. 19, 1967, it was awarded the Order of the October Revolution in connection with the 50th anniversary of Soviet power. On Dec. 29, 1972, the RSFSR was awarded the Order of the Friendship of Peoples in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the USSR.

Socialism had fundamentally changed the face of the RSFSR, which had become the greatest industrial republic of the USSR.

In the second half of the 1960’s and the first half of the 1970’s, intensive development of the republic’s economy continued. The largest hydroelectric power plants in the world were erected on the Volga, Kama, Ob’, Enisei, Angara, and Irtysh rivers. Oil production began in Tiumen’ Oblast. A network of oil and gas pipelines was constructed from the oil regions. A large automotive plant, the Volga Automobile Works, was built in Tol’iatti. The huge Kama Truck Plant is under construction in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny. Work is proceeding on the important railroad known as the Baikal-Amur Main Line. Development of the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly is proceeding at a rapid rate, and the natural resources of Siberia and the Far East are being developed.

The agriculture of the RSFSR now takes the form of large-scale socialist production with extensive use of machinery. In 1974 the RSFSR had 58 percent of the land in the USSR under crops. Of great importance for the increase in crop area was the plowing of virgin and long-fallow lands; 16.3 million ha of such lands were developed between 1954 and 1960. About 60 percent of the grain output of the USSR was harvested in the RSFSR. The achievements of agriculture were largely a result of such measures as the improvement of the procurement systems for agricultural products, the raising of purchase prices, the increasing of appropriations, and the introduction of guaranteed labor compensation in the kolkhozes. The measures were worked out by the Twenty-third Congress of the CPSU in 1966, by the March 1965, May 1966, and October 1968 plenums of the Central Committee of the party, and by the Twenty-fourth Congress of the CPSU in 1971.

In 1974 the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a decree of great importance for the accelerated development of the republic’s agriculture and the resolution of the social problems of the Russian countryside: On Measures for the Further Development of Agriculture in the Nonchernozem Zone of the RSFSR.

In the period of a developed socialist society, the working people of the RSFSR are making an important contribution to the construction of communism in the USSR through their heroic labor in industry, agriculture, science, and culture (see alsoCOMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION and TRADE UNION OF THE USSR).


General works
Istoriia SSSR: S drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, vols. 1–10. Moscow, 1966–73.
Istoriia KPSS, vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1964–70.
Drobizhev, V. Z., I. D. Koval’chenko, and A. V. Murav’ev. Istoricheskaia geografiia SSSR. Moscow, 1973.
Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, vols. 1–5. Leningrad, 1968–69.
Ocherki istorii Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia, fascs. 1–4. Kazan, 1967–72.
Istoriia Urala, vols. 1–2. Perm’, 1963–65.
Ocherki istorii Kommunisticheskikh organizatsii Urala, vols. 1–2. Sverdlovsk, 1971–74.
Istoriia Bashkirskoi ASSR, 5th ed. Ufa, 1972.
Ocherki istorii Bashkirskoi organizatsii KPSS. Ufa, 1973.
Istoriia Buriatskoi ASSR, vols. 1–2. Ulan-Ude, 1954–59.
Ocherki istorii Buriatskoi organizatsii KPSS. Ulan-Ude, 1970.
Istoriia Dagestana, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1967–69.
Istoriia Kabardino-Balkarskoi ASSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Kabardino-Balkarskoi organizatsii KPSS. Nal’chik, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Kalmytskoi ASSR [vols. 1–2]. Moscow, 1967–70.
Ocherki istorii Karelii, vols. 1–2. Petrozavodsk, 1957–64.
Ocherki istorii Karel’skoi organizatsii KPSS. Petrozavodsk, 1974.
Ocherki po istorii Komi ASSR, vols. 1–2. [Syktyvkar] 1955–62.
Ocherki istorii Komi partiinoi organizatsii. Syktyvkar, 1964.
Ocherki istorii Mariiskoi ASSR [vols. 1–2]. Ioshkar-Ola, 1960–65.
Ocherki istorii Mariiskoi organizatsii KPSS. Ioshkar-Ola, 1968.
Ocherki istorii Mordovskoi ASSR, vols. 1–2. Saransk, 1955–61.
Ocherki istorii Mordovskoi organizatsii KPSS. Saransk, 1967.
Istoriia Severo-Osetinskoi ASSR [books 1–2]. Moscow-Ordzhonikidze, 1959–66.
Ocherki istorii Severo-Osetinskoi partiinoi organizatsii. Ordzhonikidze, 1969.
Istoriia Tatarskoi ASSR, vols. 1–2. Kazan, 1955–60.
Ocherki istorii partiinoi organizatsii Tatarii, 1883–1972, 2nd ed. Kazan, 1973.
Istoriia Tuvy, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1964.
Ocherki istorii Udmurtskoi ASSR, vols. 1–2. Izhevsk, 1958–62.
Ocherki istorii Udmurtskoi organizatsii KPSS. Izhevsk, 1968.
Ocherki istorii Checheno-Ingushskoi ASSR, vols. 1–2. Groznyi, 1967–72.
Ocherki istorii Chuvashskoi oblastnoi organizatsii KPSS. Cheboksary, 1974.
Istoriia lakutskoi ASSR, vols. 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1955–63.
Ocherki istorii Voronezhskogo kraia, vols. 1–2. 1961–67.
Ocherki istorii Arkhangel’skoi organizatsii KPSS. [Arkhangel’sk] 1970.
Ocherki istorii Astrakhanskoi partiinoi organizatsii. Volgograd, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Brianskoi organizatsii KPSS. Tula, 1968.
Ocherki istorii Vladimirskoi organizatsii KPSS, 2nd ed. Yaroslavl, 1972.
Ocherki istorii Vologodskoi organizatsii KPSS, 1895–1968. [Vologda] 1969.
Istoriia Voronezhskoi organizatsii KPSS, 1892–1966 gg. Voronezh, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Gor’kovskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts 1–3. Gorky, 1961–74.
Ocherki istorii partiinoi organizatsii Dona [2nd ed.], parts 1–2. Rostov-on-Don, 1973.
Ocherki istorii Ivanovskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts 1–2. Ivanovo-Yaroslavl, 1963–67.
Ocherki istorii Irkutskoi organizatsii KPSS, part 1. Irkutsk, 1966.
Ocherki istorii Kaluzhskoi organizatsii KPSS. Tula, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Kalininskoi organizatsii KPSS. Moscow, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Kirovskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts 1–2. [Kirov] 1965–69.
Ocherki istorii Kostromskoi organizatsii KPSS. Yaroslavl, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Krasnodarskoi organizatsii KPSS. [Krasnodar] 1966.
Ocherki istorii Krasnoiarskoi partiinoi organizatsii, vols. 1–2. [Krasnoiarsk] 1967–70.
Ocherki istorii partiinoi organizatsii Kuzbassa, part 1. Kemerovo, 1973.
Ocherki istorii Kuibyshevskoi organizatsii KPSS. [Kuibyshev] 1967.
Ocherki istorii Leningradskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts 1–2. Leningrad, 1962–68.
Ocherki istorii Moskovskoi organizatsii KPSS, 1883–1965. Moscow, 1966.
Ocherki istorii Orenburgskoi oblastnoi organizatsii KPSS. [Cheliabinsk] 1973.
Ocherki istorii Orlovskoipartiinoi organizatsii. Tula, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Permskoi oblastnoi partiinoi organizatsii. Perm’, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Primorskoi organizatsii KPSS. Vladivostok, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Pskovskoi organizatsii KPSS. Leningrad, 1971.
Ocherki istorii Riazanskoi organizatsii KPSS. Moscow, 1974.
Ocherki istorii Saratovskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts l[-2]. Saratov, 1957–65. (Part 1 is by G. F. Khodakov.)
Ocherki istorii Smolenskoi organizatsii KPSS. Moscow, 1970.
Ocherki istorii Stavropol’skoi organizatsii KPSS. Stavropol’, 1970.
Ocherki istorii Tambovskoi organizatsii KPSS. Voronezh, 1970.
Ocherki istorii TuVskoi organizatsii KPSS. Tula, 1967.
Ocherki istorii partiinoi organizatsii Tiumenskoi oblasti. Sverdlovsk, 1965.
Ocherki istorii Ul’ianovskoi organizatsii KPSS, parts 1–2. Ul’ianovsk, 1964–72.
Ocherki istorii Cheliabinskoi oblastnoi partiinoi organizatsii, 1917–1967. Cheliabinsk, 1967.
Ocherki istorii Iaroslavskoi organizatsii KPSS. Yaroslavl, 1967.
Prerevolutionary period
Solov’ev, S. M. Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, books 1–15. Moscow, 1959–66.
Kliuchevskii, V. O. Soch., vols. 1–8. Moscow, 1956–59.
Grekov, B. D. Krest’iane na Rusi s drevneishikh vremen do XVII v., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1952–54.
Tikhomirov, M. N. Drevnerusskie goroda, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1956.
Tikhomirov, M.N. Rossiia v XVI st. Moscow, 1962.
Cherepnin, L. V. Obrazovanie Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV – XV vv. Moscow, 1960.
Sakharov, A. M. Obrazovanie i razvitie Rossiiskogo gosudarstva v XIV-XVII vv. Moscow, 1969.
Ocherki russkoi kul’tury XIII-XV vv, parts 1–2. [Moscow, 1969–70.]
Zimin, A. A. Rossiia naporoge novogo vremeni. Moscow, 1972.
Nosov, N. E. Stanovlenie soslovno-predstaviteVnykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii. Leningrad, 1969.
Koretskii, V. I. Zakreposhchenie krest’ian i klassovaia bor’ba v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVI v. Moscow, 1970.
Rubinshtein, N. L. Sel’skoe khoziaistvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. Moscow, 1957.
Koval’chenko, I. D. Russkoe krepostnoe krest’ianstvo v pervoi polovine XIX v. [Moscow] 1967.
Fedorov, V. A. Pomeshchich’i krest’iane tsentral’no-promyshlennogo raiona Rossii kontsa XVIII-pervoi poloviny XIX v. Moscow, 1974.
Litvak, B. G. Russkaia derevnia v reforme 1861 g.: Chernozemnyi tsentr, 1861–1895 gg. Moscow, 1972.
Nifontov, A. S. Zernovoe proizvodstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX v. Moscow, 1974.
Ryndziunskii, P. G. Krest’iaiaskaia promyshlennost’ v poreformennoi Rossii (60–80-e gg XIX v.). Moscow, 1966.
Gernet, M. N. Istoriia tsarskoi tiur’my, vols. 1–5., 3rd ed. Moscow, 1960–63.
Tserkov’ v istorii Rossii (IX v–1917): Kriticheskie ocherki. Moscow, 1967. Shmidt, S. O. Stanovlenie rossiiskogo samoderzhavstva: Issledovanie sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii vremeni Ivana Groznogo. Moscow, 1973.
Troitskii, S. M. Russkii absoliutizm i dvorianstvo v XVIII v.: Formirovanie biurokratii. Moscow, 1974.
Era of socialism
Mikhailov, N. N. Moia Rossiia. Moscow, 1971.
Iasnov, M. A. Rossiiskaia Sovetskaia Federativnaia Sotsialisticheskaia Respublika. Moscow, 1972.
Polveka v Soiuze ravnykh: RSFSR, god 1972. Moscow, 1972.
Kutafin, O. E., and M. A. Shafir. V sem’e ravnykh. Moscow, 1973.
S”ezdy Sovetov Soiuza SSR, soiuznykh i avtonomnykh Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik: Sb. dokumentov, vols. 1 and 4 (part 1). Moscow, 1959–62.
Dekrety Sovetskoi vlasti, vols. 1–5. 1957–71.
Konstitutsii i konstitutsionnye akty RSFSR (1918–1937): Sb. dokumentov. Moscow, 1940.
RSFSR: Verkhovnyi Sovet. Moscow, 1938–73. (Stenographic Reports.)
Filimonov, V. G. Obrazovanie i razvitie RSFSR. Moscow, 1963.
Chistiakov, O. I. Stanovlenie Rossiiskoi federatsii (1917–1922). Moscow, 1966.
Istoriia natsional’no-gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva v SSSR, vol. 1. Moscow, 1972.
Sergeev, M. A. Nekapitalisticheskii put’ razvitiia malykh narodov Severa. (Tr. In-ta etnografii im. N. N. Miklukho-Maklaia, new series, vol. 27.) Moscow-Leningrad, 1955.
Chugunov, A. I. Organy sotsialisticheskogo kontrolia RSFSR, 1923 –1934 gg. Moscow, 1972.
Malafeev, P. A. Rossiia: Sovety i kul’tura. Moscow, 1974.
Vysshie organy gosudarstvennoi vlasti i organy tsentral’nogo upravleniia RSFSR (1917–1967 gg.): Spravochnik (Po materialam gosudarstvennykh arkhivov). Moscow, 1971.
Istoriia SSSR: Annotirovannyi perechen’ russkikh bibliografii, izdannykh do 1965 g., 2nd ed. Moscow, 1966.
Shapiro, A. L. Bibliografiia istorii SSSR. Moscow, 1968.
Spravochniki po istorii dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii: Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1971.
Zel’dina, G. M. Po Sovetskoi Rossii: Knigi o kraiakh, oblastiakh, avto-nomnykh respublikakh, natsional’nykh okrugakh i gorodakh Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Moscow, 1971.

A. M. SAKHAROV (from earliest times to the mid-19th century) and M. I. KUZNETSOV (from the mid-19th century to 1975)

General characteristics. The RSFSR has exceptionally rich raw-material and fuel-energy resources and diverse natural conditions. Within its boundaries are almost three-fourths of the Soviet Union’s water-power reserves and more than nine-tenths of the nation’s timber. The RSFSR has major deposits of petroleum, gas, coal, potassium salts, nickel, tin, aluminum ores, tungsten, gold, platinum, asbestos, graphite, mica, and various useful minerals and great expanses of agricultural land. It is important to the development of the economies of the other republics, primarily as the center of scientific and technological progress, a supplier of skilled workers and industrial goods, and a raw-materials source in many industrial sectors. The RSFSR has economic ties with all the Union republics, helping the republics to develop industry and agriculture and receiving from the republics industrial goods and various raw materials, such as cotton and silk.

During the years of socialist construction, the RSFSR has been transformed from an agrarian republic into a mighty industrial republic with developed agriculture. From 1941 to 1974 alone, national income increased by a factor of more than 10, the volume of industrial output rose by a factor of 12.2, agricultural production increased by a factor of 2.4, and freight turnover rose by a factor of 7.5. Table 4 shows the growth rates of industrial output of individual economic regions, oblasts, krais, and autonomous republics in the RSFSR.

Industry, especially heavy industry, is particularly prominent in the structure of the economy. The predominance of industry over agriculture in the republic is greater than in the country as a whole, and the same is true of the predominance of the production of means of production over the production of consumer goods.

There is mutually dependent development of industry and agriculture, transportation, and the nonproduction sphere, as well as rational use of raw-material, fuel-energy, and labor resources. The formation of new regional production complexes here assumes a progressive role. New regional production complexes include the Western Siberian Complex, where the country’s chief petroleum and gas center is being built, and the Saian

Table 4. Growth rates in total volume of industrial output in the RSFSR for 1960–74 (as percentages of 1940)
1 Calculable only as percentages of 1950
RSFSR ..............4941,0641,409
Northwestern Region.....369717914
 Arkhangelsk Oblast......400761946
 Leningrad, City of......359641799
 Leningrad Oblast ......3658911,273
 Murmansk Oblast......4749931,241
 Novgorod Oblast ......225566783
 Pskov Oblast.........3038331,074
 Vologda Oblast .......4379661,213
 Karelian ASSR........403678805
 Komi ASSR..........8251,6052,190
Central Region .........397742956
 Briansk Oblast........3718921,209
 Ivanovo Oblast........234394458
 Kalinin Oblast ........406758906
 Kaluga Oblast ........4471,1681,568
 Kostroma Oblast.......383611772
 Moscow, City of .......409700891
 Moscow Oblast .......410716938
 Orel Oblast..........3381,0371,614
 Riazan’ Oblast........4491,3661,929
 Smolensk Oblast ......194508679
 Tula Oblast..........3578701,153
 Vladimir Oblast........4929111,186
 Yaroslavl Oblast.......347647796
Volga-Viatka Region......6161,4221,900
 Gorky Oblast.........5411,2031,568
 Kirov Oblast .........9691,8412,306
 Chuvash ASSR........7232,3333,564
 Mari ASSR ..........8232,1973,279
 Mordovian ASSR ......3811,3301,960
Central Chernozem Region .......4371,0791,467
 Belgorod Oblast.......3971,0401,470
 Kursk Oblast .........5611,4961,986
 Lipetsk Oblast ........5821,6342,341
 Tambov Oblast........4229541,252
 Voronezh Oblast.......3768751,178
Volga Region ..........9022,3053,235
 Astrakhan Oblast ......241531654
 Kuibyshev Oblast ......1,5344,1496,596
 Penza Oblast.........5681,3471,854
 Saratov Oblast........7541,8932,560
 Ul’ianovsk Oblast .....7401,8882,632
 Volgograd Oblast .....4561,3351,757
 Bashkir ASSR........1,5303,9205,442
 Kalmyk ASSR........166616857
 Tatar ASSR .........1,2042,7463,732
Northern Caucasus Region .........3517991,022
 Krasnodar Krai.......318704853
 Stavropol’ Krai.......3418521,169
Rostov Oblast.........3827801,035
 Chechen-Ingush ASSR .........308832892
 Dagestan ASSR ......3641,0021,260
 Kabarda-Balkar ASSR .........4371,4352,142
 SevernaiaOsetiia ASSR .........329756982
Ural Region ..........7511,6332,114
 Cheliabinsk Oblast ....8611,7302,168
 Kurgan Oblast .......6391,8022,528
 Orenburg Oblast......8512,1302,998
 Perm’ Oblast ........5081,1541,486
 Sverdlovsk Oblast.....8551,7302,171
 Udmurt ASSR ........7442,2023,344
Western Siberian Region ........9142,0732,883
 Altai Krai...........7771,8072,448
 Kemerovo Oblast .....7051,3781,714
 Novosibirsk Oblast ....1,2823,0234,294
 Omsk Oblast ........1,3363,4684,866
 Tomsk Oblast........9371,9432,516
 Tiumen’Oblast .......6381,8343,609
Eastern Siberian Region .......5891,5102,104
 Krasnoiarsk Krai......8432,3363,249
 Chita Oblast.........231435571
 Irkutsk Oblast........6481,6072,264
 TuvaASSR1 .........
Far East Region........4029521,255
 Khabarovsk Krai......5111,2031,654
 Primor’e Krai ........4071,0061,355
 Amur Oblast.........327690847
 Kamchatka Oblast.....3729431,258
 Magadan Oblast1......152362417
 Sakhalin Oblast ......
 Yakut ASSR .........5391,8592,583
Kaliningrad Oblast1 .........— 
Table 5. Structure of industry in the RSFSR (1974, percentage of total)
 Industrial production fixed assetsIndustrial production personnel
All industry......................................100.0100.0
 Electric-power and fuel industries......................27.25.4
 Metallurgy and chemical, building-materials, and lumber industries............................34.426.9
 Machine building ................................24.443.1
 Light industry and food industry .......................11.021.4

and Bratsk-Ust’-Ilimsk complexes. There is increased specialization and comprehensiveness of production in each economic region, and ties between regions are being improved.

Industry. In 1974 there were 28,000 industrial enterprises in the RSFSR, or approximately 60 percent of the total number in the USSR. Industry in the republic is not only great in size but varied in type. Indeed, the RSFSR yields all types of output produced in the USSR, from raw materials and fuel to highly complex machines and articles of fine-chemical technology. The RSFSR leads the other Union republics in production in virtually all industrial sectors.

The RSFSR accounts for some two-thirds of the electric power produced in the entire Soviet Union, more than four-fifths of the petroleum extracted, more than one-half of the coal mined, about two-fifths of the natural gas extracted, and one-third of the iron ore mined. It accounts for more than one-half of the Soviet Union’s output of cast iron, steel, and rolled metal, about one-half of the mineral fertilizers and sulfuric acid, more than three-fourths of the soda ash, and some two-thirds of the chemical fibers. The republic produces four-fifths of the nation’s lumber, more than nine-tenths of the cellulose, and more than four-fifths of the paper. It manufactures three-fifths of the nation’s cement and more than one-half of the nation’s rein-forced-concrete articles and structural members. It produces more than four-fifths of the motor vehicles made in the USSR, about one-half of the machine tools, some three-fourths of the electrical locomotives run on main lines, and about one-half of the tractors. It manufactures approximately three-fourths of the spinning machines made in the Soviet Union, four-fifths of the cottons, about three-fourths of the wools and linens, two-thirds of the silks, and one-half of the footwear. The RSFSR accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation’s fish catch, one-half of the meat and milk production, and about two-thirds of the output of whole-milk products. Almost all sectors of industry with the exception of textiles are using local raw materials to achieve further development.

The RSFSR leads a large majority of the capitalist countries in the most important types of industrial output. It produces more electric power, coal, gas, mineral fertilizer, and fabrics than any other country except the United States. In the production of steel, rolled metal, and cement, it trails only the United States and Japan. In petroleum extraction it is third behind the United States and Saudi Arabia.

As Table 5 shows, heavy industry is the leading type of industry in the RSFSR. Production of the means of production accounts for about three-fourths of the industrial output.

The electric-power, chemical, and machine-building industries are important as the sectors that ensure scientific and technological progress. They concentrate about half of all the production workers and industrial production fixed assets. These sectors have exceptionally high rates of development. From 1941 to 1974 the output of the machine-building and met-alworking industries increased by a factor of 40.6, the output of the chemical and petrochemical industries increased by a factor of 35.5, and the power production of electrical power rose by a factor of 23. Accelerated growth is also observable in the petroleum, gas, and building-materials industries, as shown in Table 6.

During the years of Soviet power, industry has spread to the eastern regions of the RSFSR, where enormous raw-material and fuel-energy resources are concentrated. The eastern regions of the RSFSR are primarily oriented toward development of the fuel industry, the electric-power industry, and the energy-intensive sectors of ferrous and nonferrous metallurgy, the chemical industry, and the timber industry. Labor-intensive sectors predominate in the European part of the republic, including the Urals.

In 1974 the fuel industry counted 717 enterprises, or about 2.6 percent of the total number of industrial enterprises in the RSFSR, and 728,000 industrial production workers, or approximately 3.4 percent of the total number of industrial production workers in the RSFSR. The industry encompasses extraction of all types of mineral fuel, but petroleum and natural gas constitute more than two-thirds of the total; before the October Revolution, petroleum accounted for 13 percent of the total. From

Table 6. Major types of industrial output in the RSFSR
Electricity (billion kW-hrs) ..........................1.330.8197.0470.2605.7
Petroleum, including gas condensate (million tons) ..........1.37.0118.9284.8379.8
Natural gas (billion cu m).........................0.224.483.3100.0
Coal (million tons) ...........................6.072.8294.5344.8372.1
Cast iron (million tons) ..........................1.35.321.642.051.0
Steel (million tons).............................1.89.336.663.975.6
Rolled metals (million tons) .........................1.46.627.950.159.5
Mineral fertilizers (standard units, million tons) .............
Chemical fiber and thread (thousand tons)..............7.0176.5431.9538.1
Wood (million cu m).......................54.5216.0336.0354.0361.0
Cellulose (million tons) .....................
Paper (million tons) .........................
Cement (million tons) .........................1.23.629.557.768.9
Fabrics (billion sq m).................
Leather footwear (million pairs)................141.3244.7350.0335.3
Granulated sugar (million tons)...............
Meat (million tons)...........
Butter (thousand tons) ..........................141.1383.6486.3644.6

1941 to 1974 petroleum extraction increased by a factor of 54; gas extraction, by a factor of 477; coal extraction, by a factor of 5; and shale extraction, by a factor of greater than 8. Petroleum is extracted in the Volga-Ural Oil-Gas Region, where most deposits were explored and opened in the 1930’s. In 1974 petroleum production in this region was 222.8 million tons, or 59 percent of all petroleum extracted in the RSFSR. In the 1960’s extraction operations began in the Western Siberian Oil and Gas Basin, where the Samotlor, Ust’-Balyk, Megion, Shaim, and Sosnina-Sovetskii deposits are located; 116.4 million tons were extracted in 1974. The petroleum resources of the Western Siberian Lowland are superior to those of the Volga-Ural Oil-Gas Region because of their quality characteristics and the conditions under which they are found.

Petroleum is also extracted in the Northern Caucasus (Groznyi, Maikop, Malgobek, and Goragorskii deposits), in the Komi ASSR (Voi-Vozh, Usa, and Iarega deposits), and on the island of Sakhalin (Okha and Tungor deposits). Although the absolute volume of extraction in the Volga-Ural Oil-Gas Region is increasing, the region’s proportional share of total oil and gas extraction is decreasing. The Western Siberian Basin is rapidly increasing in importance, and by 1980 extraction will reach 230 to 260 million tons.

As the petroleum resources of the Western Siberian Lowland were developed, the system of interregional ties with respect to liquid fuel changed. Petroleum from the Volga-Ural Oil-Gas Region is sent only to the European part of the RSFSR, whereas Western Siberian petroleum is sent both to the European part of the republic and to the eastern regions as far as to Lake Baikal. The petroleum is pumped through a network of trunk pipelines to consumer regions and to refining centers in Yaroslavl, Kirishi, Gorky, Groznyi, Krasnodar, Kuibyshev, Novokuibyshevsk, Ufa, Ishimbai, Omsk, Angarsk, and elsewhere. New petroleum refineries are being built in the Northwest USSR (Arkhangel’sk Oblast), in Eastern Siberia (Achinsk), and in the Soviet Far East.

The extraction of natural gases is concentrated in the Northern Caucasus (the Severnyi Stavropol’ and Anastasiev-skaia-Troitskoe deposits), the Volga Region (the Kurdium-El-shanka and Korobki deposits), and the Northwest USSR (the Vuktyl deposit). These regions produce 59 percent of the natural gas extracted in the RSFSR; production was 59 billion cu m in 1974. Prospects for development of the gas industry are in large part linked to exploitation of the resources of Western Siberia and the Urals. Explored reserves of natural gas within the boundaries of the Western Siberia Lowland total 14 trillion cu m. Typical deposits contain from 1 to 4 trillion cu m and include the Urengoi, Iamburg, Zapoliarnyi, and Medvezh’e deposits; the Urengoi deposit is the world’s largest.

One-sixth of all the natural gas extracted in the RSFSR is casing-head gas; 17.8 billion cu m were extracted in 1974. The gas is refined at Tuimazy, Shkapovo, Al’met’evsk, and Otrad-noe in the Volga region and at Krasnodar and Groznyi in the Northern Caucasus. Plans call for construction of several new plants in the Western Siberian Lowlands, with a total capacity of between 5 and 6 billion cu m. Orenburg Oblast in the Urals is becoming a major center for the extraction and refinement of casing-head gas, which is used to obtain natural gasoline, liquefied gases, sulfur, and helium.

The largest coal basins of interregional significance are the Kuznetsk and Pechora basins. The Moscow, Kizel, Kansk-Achinsk, and Irkutsk coal basins are important regionally. More than 60 percent of the total coal extracted is hard coal (231.6 million tons in 1974), about one-third of which (74.3 million tons in 1974) is coking coal from the Kuznetsk, Pechora, and, to some extent, Kizel basins. A significant amount of brown coal is extracted in the Kansk-Achinsk Basin. More than 40 percent of all coal is mined by the opencut method, especially in Siberia and the Soviet Far East. Peat used for fuel is excavated primarily in the Central and Volga-Viatka regions and in the Urals; 25.3 million tons were excavated in 1974. Shales are extracted at Slantsy in the Northwest USSR and from the Kashpir Deposit in the Volga Region.

Electric power. In 1974, 915 enterprises were engaged in the production of electric power in the RSFSR; this number represents more than 3 percent of the total number of enterprises in the republic. The electric-power enterprises employed 402,000 industrial production workers, or some 2 percent of the republic total. Between 1941 and 1974 the capacities of power stations increased by a factor of 18 and the production of electrical energy increased by a factor of almost 20. The capacity of all power stations in the RSFSR is 125.6 million kW (1974), with steam power plants accounting for more than four-fifths of the total. The Central Region, the Volga Region, the Urals, and Eastern Siberia are major producers of electrical energy, generating 407.5 billion kW-hr (1974), or more than two-thirds of all electrical energy produced in the RSFSR.

There are consolidated power systems for the Central Zone, Northwest USSR, Middle Volga Region, Urals, and Northern Caucasus, which constitute the foundation of the Integrated Electric Power Grid of the European USSR, and also for Siberia and the Soviet Far East. The systems include various kinds of power plants joined by the Kuibyshev-Moscow, Kuibyshev-Cheliabinsk, Volgograd-Moscow, and Ust’-Ilimsk-Bratsk-Irkutsk-Krasnoiarsk-Kuznetsk Basin high-voltage lines. Condensation power plants that use coal, natural gas, mazut, and peat predominate; the largest plants are the Konakovo, Troitsk, Kostroma, Novocherkassk, Iriklinskii, Reftinskii, Zai, Nevinnomyssk, Karmanovo, Nazarovo, and Tom’-Usa state regional electric power plants. Construction has begun on the Pechora State Regional Electric Power Plant in the Northwest USSR and on the Primor’e State Regional Electric Power Plant in the Soviet Far East. The first units are being put in operation at the Zeia Hydroelectric Power Plant.

Large cities and industrial centers have powerful steam power plants. Atomic power plants are operating in regions with strained fuel-energy balances and in places where mineral fuel and water-power resources are limited or lacking; they include the Novovoronezhskii Atomic Power Plant in the Central Chernozem Region and the Beloiarsk Plant in the Urals. The Leningrad, Kola, and Bilibino atomic power plants have also begun operations.

The Volga-Kama and Angara-Enisei water-power systems include the V. I. Lenin Volga Plant (2.3 million kW), the country’s largest hydroelectric power station; the Volga Twenty-second Congress of the CPSU Plant (2.5 million kW); the Bratsk Plant (4.1 million kW); and the Krasnoiarsk Plant (6 million kW). Construction has begun on the Ust’-Ilimsk and Saian-Shushenskoe hydroelectric power plants, which will generate 3.6 million and 5.3 million kW, respectively. Construction is beginning on the Kolyma Hydroelectric Power Plant. All the major hydroelectric power plants and state regional electric power plants have been built in the postwar years. The Soviet Union’s first geothermal power plant and first tidal power plant were built in the RSFSR, in Kamchatka and on the Kola Peninsula, respectively.

Chemical and petrochemical industry. In 1974, the chemical and petrochemical industry counted 602 enterprises, or more than 2 percent of the total number of enterprises in the republic, and 1,123,000 industrial production personnel, or more than 5 percent of the republic total. Almost all sectors of the industry were created during the years of Soviet power. Between 1941 and 1974 the production of chemical fibers increased by a factor of almost 77, production of mineral fertilizers increased by a factor of 17, production of soda ash increased by a factor of greater than 37, and production of sulfuric acid increased by a factor of almost 7. The chemical industry has enormous petroleum, gas, and mining and chemical resources, including apatites, phosphorites, potassium salts, common salt, and sulfur. Petrochemical complexes for carrying out organic synthesis have been built in the Volga and Central regions, Western Siberia, and Eastern Siberia, primarily after the war. New petrochemical complexes are being built at Tobol’sk and Tomsk to process petroleum from Western Siberia.

The production of synthetic rubber is concentrated in Vol-zhskii, Tol’iatti, Sterlitamak, and Nizhnekamsk in the Volga Region; Yaroslavl and Efremov in the Central Region; Voronezh in the Central Chernozem Region; and Omsk in Western Siberia. Plastics are manufactured primarily in Moscow, Vladimir, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Novomoskovsk, and Shchekino in the Central Region; Dzerzhinsk in the Volga-Viatka Region; No-vokuibyshevsk, Kazan, Volgograd, Ufa, and Salavat in the Volga Region; Sverdlovsk and Nizhnii Tagil in the Urals; Leningrad and Novgorod in the Northwest; Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, and Tiumen’ in Western Siberia; and Usol’e-Sibirskoe and Angarsk in Eastern Siberia. The principal centers for the production of chemical fibers are Riazan’, Kalinin, Serpukhov, and Klin in the Central Region; Kursk in the Central Chernozem Region; Volzhskii, Saratov, Engel’s, and Balakovo in the Volga Region; Barnaul and Kemerovo in Western Siberia; and Krasnoiarsk in Eastern Siberia.

Centers for the production of nitrogen fertilizers include Novomoskovsk and Shchekino in the Central Region; Lipetsk in the Central Chernozem Region; Dzerzhinsk in the Volga-Viatka Region; Tol’iatti and Salavat in the Volga Region; and Novgorod and Cherepovets in the Northwest; Nevinnomyssk in the Northern Caucasus; Berezniki, Magnitogorsk, and Nizhnii Tagil in the Urals; Kemerovo in Western Siberia; and Angarsk in Eastern Siberia. Potassium fertilizers are produced in Berezniki and Solikamsk in the Urals. Among the centers for the production of phosphate fertilizers are Leningrad, Volkhov, and Kingisepp in the Northwest; Voskresensk in the Central Region; Uvarovo in the Central Chernozem Region; Tol’iatti and Balakovo in the Volga Region; Nevinnomyssk and Chir”-iurt in the Northern Caucasus; and Perm’, Krasnoural’sk, and Revda in the Urals. Production of nitrogen fertilizer predominates, accounting for more than one-half of total fertilizer production. In 1974, 18.3 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer were produced, 6.9 million tons of potassium fertilizer, 6.5 million tons of phosphate fertilizers, and small amounts of boron and boron-magnesium fertilizers. Since the chief raw material for the nitrogen-fertilizer industry is natural gas, enterprises can be located not only near raw-material extraction sites but also at some distance, along the routes of main gas pipelines. Enterprises that use coking gas are directly connected to the centers of ferrous metallurgy, and those that use the waste products of the petroleum-refining process are connected to centers of the petroleum-refining industry.

Enterprises of the potassium industry are located only at raw-material extraction sites. The phosphate fertilizer industry is largely based in consumer regions, and virtually all industry enterprises—even those in the Central Region, which has its own sources of raw material—use apatite concentrates from the Kola Peninsula. Sulfuric acid is usually produced in centers that produce phosphate fertilizers, and the enterprises are located in consumer regions. In 1974, 7.6 million tons of sulfuric acid were produced. Sulfuric acid is also produced at enterprises engaged in nonferrous metallurgy (Revda, Kirovgrad, and Ordzhonikidze) and at petroleum refineries (Novokuiby-shevsk). The soda industry, which in 1974 produced 3.6 million tons of soda ash, has enterprises in Berezniki in the Urals, Mi-khailovskii in Western Siberia, Achinsk in Eastern Siberia, Volkhov and Pikalevo in the Northwest, and Sterlitamak in the Volga Region; the enterprises are located at raw-material extraction sites.

Metallurgy. In 1974 ferrous metallurgy accounted for 166 enterprises, or 0.6 percent of the republic total, and 772,000 industrial production personnel, or about 4 percent of the republic total. During the years of Soviet power, old metallurgical plants have been entirely rebuilt and most output is produced by new combines and giant plants. Between 1941 and 1974, iron-ore extraction increased by a factor of greater than 8; coke production, by a factor of greater than 7; pig-iron production, by a factor of 9.7; steel production, by a factor almost 8.1; and finished rolled-metal production, by a factor of 8.9. The most important ferrous-metallurgy enterprises with full production cycles are at Magnitogorsk, Cheliabinsk, and Nizhnii Tagil in the Urals; Lipetsk and Tula in the Central Region; and Novokuznetsk in Western Siberia. Outside the main production regions, there are isolated centers of ferrous metallurgy with conversion plants in Volgograd, Krasnyi Sulin, Krasnoiarsk, Petrovsk-Za-baikal’skii, and Komsomol’sk-na-Amure and a full-cycle plant in Cherepovets.

The Ural Region produces more than one-half of the republic’s cast iron (27.1 million tons in 1974), steel (41.9 million tons), and rolled finished metal (26.4 million tons). Although conversion metallurgy has developed significantly, full-cycle enterprises still play the dominant role. The Ural Region is noted for high-quality metallurgy. Important products include ferroalloys (Cheliabinsk) and pipes and tubes (Pervoural’sk). A feature of the ferrous metallurgy in the region is that the fuel is not locally produced, but coking coals are brought in from the Kuznetsk and Karaganda basins. Despite the significant amounts of iron ore that are extracted (25 million tons in 1974) and the construction of new enterprises, such as the Kachkanar Ore-dressing Combines, the Ural Region also uses raw material from Kazakhstan, as in the case of Sokolovskaia-Sarba Combine.

The metallurgical enterprises of the Central Region and the Central Chernozem Region account for more than one-fifth of the cast iron produced in the republic (9.4 million tons in 1974), almost 8 percent of the steel (6.3 million tons), and 11 percent of the finished rolled metal (5.5 million tons). As in the Urals, steel production has become significantly greater than cast-iron production because of the substantial development of conversion metallurgy. Typically, the enterprises depend on coking coal from the Donets Coal Basin, although ample supplies of raw materials are made available from local sources. In 1974, 30.8 million tons of iron ore were extracted. Iron ore is mined in the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly, a unique source of metallurgical raw material, where the KMAruda Combine, Stoilenskoe Ore Administration, and Mikhailovskoe and Lebedinskoe mining and concentrating combines are located. It is also mined on the Kola Peninsula, where the Olenegorsk and Kovdor mining and concentrating combines are located. The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly is being developed at a rapid rate, and new enterprises to extract iron ores are being built.

The Siberian metallurgical base, which includes enterprises in Western and Eastern Siberia and the Soviet Far East, produces about one-fifth of the cast iron (9.3 million tons in 1974), 17 percent of the steel (12.5 million tons), and 18 percent of the finished rolled metal made in the RSFSR. The enterprises are concentrated primarily in Kemerovo Oblast, where, in addition to the large Kuznetsk Metallurgical Combine, the Western Siberian Metallurgical Works is now in operation. The region has favorable raw-material and fuel resources. Iron ore is mined in Western and Eastern Siberia, with outputs totaling 15 million tons in 1974.

The RSFSR is the USSR’s principal supplier of nickel, which is smelted in Monchegorsk in the Northwest; Orsk, Verkhnii Ufalei, and Rezh in the Urals; and Noril’sk in Eastern Siberia. It is also an important producer of tin, ores of which are extracted and concentrated at the Khrustal’nyi and Solnechnyi mining and concentrating combines in the Soviet Far East. Enterprises to smelt tin have been built along the routes used to ship concentrates (Novosibirsk) and in consumer regions. The production of copper and nickel is assuming significant proportions in Krasnoural’sk, Kirovgrad, Revda, Mednogorsk, Ver-khniaia Pyshma, Kyshtym, and Karabash in the Urals, as well as in other regions. Lead is produced in Ordzhonikidze in the Northern Caucasus and in Dal’negorsk in the Soviet Far East. Zinc is produced in Ordzhonikidze in the Northern Caucasus, Cheliabinsk in the Urals, and Belovo in Western Siberia. Aluminum production is widespread. A favorable combination of raw-material and fuel-energy resources has led to the creation of many centers for the aluminum industry that utilize sources of inexpensive electrical energy. Among these centers are Volkhov, Kandalaksha, and Nadvoitsy in the Northwest; Volgograd in the Volga Region; Krasnotur’insk and Kamensk-Ural’-skii in the Ural Region; Novokuznetsk in the Western Siberian Region; and Krasnoiarsk, Bratsk, and Shelekhov in the Eastern Siberian Region. A significant role is played by the extraction and concentration of tungsten and molybdenum at the Tyr-nyauz Mining and Concentrating Combine in the Northern Caucasus, the Sorsk Mining and Concentrating Combine in Eastern Siberia, and the Iul’tin Mining and Concentrating Combine in the Soviet Far East. Gold is mined primarily in Eastern Siberia and the Soviet Far East. Diamond deposits include the Mir, Aikhal, and Udachnaia kimberlite pipes in Yakutia and deposits in Perm’ Oblast.

The raw-material base of the aluminum industry is expanding. Construction has begun on the Severnaia Onega bauxite mine, and the Krasnoiarsk and Bratsk aluminum plants are near completion.

Machine building and metalworking. In 1974 the machine-building and metalworking sector counted 4,984 enterprises, or more than 17 percent of the republic total, and 9,093,000 industrial production personnel, or more than 43 percent of the republic total. Machine-building enterprises are more widespread in the RSFSR than are the enterprises of other sectors. Between 1941 and 1974, the production of forging and pressing machines increased by a factor greater than 12; production of metallurgical equipment, by a factor of 23.7; production of electric locomotives used on trunk lines, by a factor of 28; and production of subway cars, by a factor of 48.3. During the same period, the production of motor vehicles rose by a factor greater than 11; production of tractors, by a factor of 12; production of grain-harvesting combines, by a factor of approximately 16; and production of excavators, by a factor of 94. Machine building is found in all the economic regions.

Enterprises engaged in heavy machine building are established in regions with metallurgical plants and heavy industry in general. In 1974 the production of metallurgical equipment totaled 182,000 tons. Enterprises include those in Elektrostal’ in the Central Region, Sverdlovsk and Orsk in the Ural Region, and Irkutsk in the Eastern Siberian Region.

The major centers for the building of machinery for the power industry include Leningrad in the Northwest, Moscow in the Central Region, Sverdlovsk in the Ural Region, and Novosibirsk in Western Siberia. The centers are located primarily in regions with highly sophisticated industrial production. In 1974, turbines of the design capacities totaling 12.1 million kW and 11,200 pieces of major electric machinery were built in the RSFSR.

Historically, the first enterprises to build transport machinery were established in regions where the railroad network first began to develop. In 1974, 253 trunk-line electric locomotives were built, along with 33,000 trunk-line freight cars and 1,400 trunk-line passenger cars. Diesel engines are produced in Kolomna in the Central Region, and electric locomotives are built in Novocherkassk in the Northern Caucasus. Railroad cars are manufactured in Leningrad in the Northwest; Briansk, Kalinin, and Mytishchi in the Central Region; Nizhnii Tagil in the Ural Region; and Novoaltaisk in Western Siberia.

There is a well-developed shipbuilding industry. Oceangoing ships are built in Leningrad in the Northwest. Ships used on rivers are built in Gorky, in the Volga-Viatka Region, Volgograd and Astrakhan in the Volga Region, Tiumen’ in Western Siberia, Krasnoiarsk in Eastern Siberia, and Khabarovsk and Blagoveshchensk in the Soviet Far East.

In 1974, the motor-vehicle industry built 999,900 passenger cars, 566,100 trucks, and 43,300 buses. Major plants are in Moscow, Briansk, and Likino-Dulev in the Central Region; Gorky and Pavlovo in the Volgo-Viatka Region; Tol’iatti and Ul’ianovsk in the Volga Region; and Miass, Izhevsk, and Kurgan in the Ural Region. One of the largest new construction projects is the Kama Truck Plant in Naberezhnye Chelny, which is expected to produce 150,000 diesel vehicles and trailer trains a year.

Enterprises that build tractors are established in consumer regions and also in areas with supplies of raw materials, depending on the amount of metal used in production. The most important centers are in Cheliabinsk in the Ural Region, Volgograd in the Volga Region, Leningrad in the Northwest, Vladimir in the Central Region, Lipetsk in the Central Chernozem Region, and Rubtsovsk in Western Siberia.

Combines are built exclusively in consumer regions. In 1974, 88,400 grain-harvesting combines were manufactured. Plants are located in Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog in the Northern Caucasus, Syzran’ in the Volga Region, Liubertsy in the Central Region, and Krasnoiarsk in Eastern Siberia.

Many other enterprises are under construction, including the Cheboksary Plant for Industrial Tractors, the Volzhskii Bearing Plant, plants that produce automatic transfer machines in Sukhinichi and Sasovo, and the Abakan Railroad-car Plant.

Building-materials industry. In 1974, the building-materials industry counted 2,095 enterprises, or some 7.5 percent of the republic total, and 1,171,000 industrial production personnel, or about 6 percent of the republic total. The production of building materials is growing to keep pace with the increased construction of both industrial enterprises and housing. Between 1941 and 1974, production of cement increased by a factor greater than 19; production of construction brick, by a factor of 5.5; and production of window glass, by a factor of 6. Enterprises of the cement industry, which together produced 68.9 million tons of cement in 1974, are found in all the economic regions and are established near sources of raw material. The industry is largest in the Ural (Sukhoi Log, Gornoza-vodsk), Volga (Vol’sk, Sterlitamak), Northern Caucasus (Novorossiisk), and Central (Briansk, Voskresensk, Podol’sk) regions, which together account for more than half of the total cement production. The European part of the RSFSR, which includes the Ural Region, produces four-fifths of all cement.

The production of precast reinforced concrete totaled 58.8 million cu m in 1974. Like the cement industry, this industry is developed throughout the republic. Unlike enterprises producing cement, however, those producing precast reinforced concrete are established in consumer regions. The largest producers are the Central, Volga, Northwestern, and Ural regions, which produce about two-thirds of the total output. The European part of the RSFSR, which includes the Ural Region, accounts for more than four-fifths of all the precast reinforced concrete produced. New plants to produce cement, asbestos, window glass, and other building materials are under construction, especially in the eastern regions.

Lumber, wood-products, and pulp and paper industries. In 1974, the lumber, wood-products, and pulp and paper industries counted 4,375 enterprises, or about 16 percent of the republic total, and 2,118,000 industrial production personnel, or 10 percent of the republic total. These industries occupy a special position because more than 90 percent of the USSR’s timber reserves are concentrated in the RSFSR, with more than 75 percent in Siberia and the Soviet Far East. Between 1941 and 1974, the amount of wood shipped increased by a factor of 1.7, the production of sawn wood more than tripled, pulp production increased by a factor greater than 13, and paper production rose by a factor greater than 6. The lumber industry produces products of all types.

In 1974, 316 million cu m of wood was shipped. More than 87 percent of the wood was shipped from regions rich in forests and having surplus lumber resources: the Northwestern, Volga-Viatka, Ural, Western Siberian, Eastern Siberian, and Far East regions. The Northwestern, Ural, and Eastern Siberian regions, where more than 61 percent of the timber originates, are especially important. The Northwestern, Eastern Siberian, Ural, and Central regions are important producers of sawn wood. Of the 91.7 million cu m of sawn wood produced in 1974, these regions accounted for 63 percent.

In 1974, pulp and paper enterprises produced 5.9 million tons of pulp, 4.2 million tons of paper, and 2.4 million tons of cardboard. Enterprises are located in Arkhangel’sk, Kondopoga, Segezha, Kotlas, and Syktyvkar in the Northwest; Krasno-kamsk, Solikamsk, and Krasnovishersk in the Ural Region; Pravdinsk and Volzhsk in the Volga-Viatka Region; Krasnoiarsk and Bratsk in Eastern Siberia; and Amursk in the Soviet Far East. The Northwestern, Ural, and Volga-Viatka regions accounted for more than four-fifths of the total paper production. Major lumber complexes, such as those at Syktyvkar and Bratsk, have been built in the heavily forested regions of the RSFSR. New lumber complexes are under construction in Ust’-Ilimsk and elsewhere.

Light industry. Light industry in 1974 counted 4,815 enterprises, or more than 17 percent of the republic total, and 2,874,000 industrial production personnel, or almost 14 percent of the republic total. Between 1941 and 1974, the production of cottons increased by a factor of 1.7; production of wools, by a factor of 3.8; production of linens, by a factor of 2.3; production of silks, by a factor of approximately 16; and production of leather footwear, by a factor of greater than 2.

In terms of output, the largest sector of light industry is the textile sector. It comprises the cotton, wool, linen, and silk industries, which in 1974 produced 6,266 million, 387 million, 614 million, and 953 million running meters of fabrics, respectively. The Central Zone, historically one of the largest textile industry regions in the world, is the major producer of fabrics. It produces more than 84 percent of all cottons (Ivanovo, Moscow, Yaroslavl, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Kalinin), more than four-fifths of all linens (Kostroma, Viazniki), about three-fourths of all silks (Moscow, Kalinin, Naro-Fominsk), and more than two-thirds of all wools (Moscow). It brings in all the necessary raw materials—except for some flax fiber—from outside the region and ships finished fabric to all parts of the Soviet Union. The Northwest is another old textile industry region; production is concentrated in Leningrad.

New textile regions have emerged as production has moved closer to consumers. The Volga Region, because of its location on raw-material transit routes, has become a major producer of cotton, wool, and silk fabrics; major centers are Kamyshin and Engel’s. Orenburg and Chaikovskii in the Ural Region have become centers for the production of silks. Western Siberia manufactures cottons (Barnaul) and linens (Biisk), and Eastern Siberia produces cottons (Kansk) and silks (Krasnoiarsk).

Many light-industry enterprises are being built, especially in eastern regions. Wool combines are being built in Tiumen’ and Leninsk-Kuznetskii, and silk combines are under construction in Orenburg and Kemerovo. A wool-spinning combine is being built in Briansk, and knitwear factories are being constructed in Ulan-Ude and Bikin.

Food-processing industry. In 1974, the food-processing industry counted 6,260 enterprises, or 22.4 percent of the republic total, and 1,635,000 industrial production personnel, or about 8 percent of the republic total. Between 1940 and 1974, the production of granulated sugar increased by a factor of 7.5; the production of meat, by a factor of 5.6; the fish catch, by a factor of 6.3; the production of butter, by a factor of 4.6; and the production of whole-milk products, by a factor of greater than 12. The food-processing industry is represented in all economic regions.

The enterprises of some sectors are established near the sources of raw materials (sugar and butter industries), those of other sectors are established close to the consumer (bread-baking and confectionery industries), and those of still others are established close to both raw materials and consumers (meat and milling industries). The sugar industry, which produced 2.7 million tons of granulated sugar in 1974, is concentrated in the Central Chernozem Region and in the Northern Caucasus, where 79 percent of all sugar is refined. The largest amount of meat is produced by the Central Region and the Northern Caucasus, with production totaling 1.4 million tons in 1974. The butter industry is found in all parts of the republic, with the Central Region and Northern Caucasus accounting for 23 percent of total butter production. As the food-processing industry develops, large enterprises are being established and production is being expanded, primarily into eastern regions.

Agriculture. The RSFSR has vast areas of land given over to agricultural enterprises and farms. In 1974, these areas totaled 658.7 million hectares (ha), or approximately 40 percent of the total land area of the republic. Sovkhozes and other state farms account for 70 percent of the land, with kolkhozes accounting for the remainder. Agricultural lands comprise 222.2 million ha, including 133.8 million ha of arable land, 26.8 million ha of hayfields, and 59.6 million ha of pasture. Agriculture has a strong material and technological base. The 13,000 kolkhozes and 10,500 sovkhozes that existed in 1974 had more than 1 million tractors, about 400,000 combines, and more than 480,000 trucks.

Table 7. Gross agricultural output in the RSFSR1 (billions of rubles)
1 For all types of farms and in 1965 rubles 2Average per year
Gross output ................34.940.343.545.3
 Crop farming...............15.719.120.719.3
 Animal breeding.............

Since 1940, gross agricultural output has increased by a factor of 2.4, with an increase in crop farming by a factor of 1.9 and an increase in animal breeding by a factor of 3.5 (see Table 7). Sovkhozes account for more than half of the total output of sovkhozes and kolkhozes. Sovkhozes produce much of the potatoes, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs, and wool, and kolkhozes produce most of the grain crops, sugar beets, and sunflowers.

Crop farming. The RSFSR has some 60 percent of the cultivated land in the USSR and accounts for about 60 percent of the country’s grain crops (see Table 8).

Table 8. Cultivated land in the RSFSR (millions of ha)
Grain crops.......62.970.164.971.476.5
 Spring barley.....
 Oats ..........13.915.412.410.29.4
 Rice ..........0.0010.
Industrial crops ..........
 Sugar beets .....
 Fiber flax .......
 Hemp .........
 Soybeans .......
Vegetables .......
Fodder crops......1.410.411.837.337.6

More than half of the cultivated land, or more than 66 million ha, is concentrated at sovkhozes and other state farms, which allot major portions of the land to grain crops (40.4 million ha); potatoes, vegetables, and melons (1.5 million ha); and fodder crops (21.7 million ha). The area under industrial crops is greater at kolkhozes, totaling 4.3 million ha.

More than four-fifths of the cultivated land, or 104.5 million ha, is found in the following regions: Central (14.3 million ha), Central Chernozem (11 million ha), Volga (28.7 million ha), Northern Caucasus (15.5 million ha), Ural (16.5 million ha), and Western Siberian (18.5 million ha).

According to 1974 data, the RSFSR produces 111.8 million tons of grain, or more than half of all the grain crops grown in the entire Soviet Union. Of this total, 48.7 million tons is wheat. The principal grain-producing regions, in which 88 percent of the total grain production is concentrated, are the following: Volga (30 million tons), Northern Caucasus (20.8 million tons), Ural (13.5 million tons), Western Siberia (10.4 million tons), Central (11.1 million tons), and Central Chernozem (12.7 million tons). The average annual yield of grain crops between 1971 and 1974 was 14.6 quintals (q) per ha, as compared with 7.9 q per ha in 1940. Yield was highest in the Northern Caucasus, Central Chernozem, and Volga regions.

The chief grain crop in the RSFSR is wheat, which is grown primarily in the following regions: Western Siberia (7.2 million tons), Ural (7.1 million tons), Volga (12.5 million tons), Northern Caucasus (11.3 million tons), and Eastern Siberia (3 million tons). These regions account for almost 85 percent of the total wheat harvest, with the eastern regions of the republic producing more than 35 percent of the total. In 1974, the yield was 22.6 q per ha for winter wheat and 11.2 q per ha for spring wheat. The maximum yield figures for winter wheat are obtained in the Northern Caucasus and Central Chernozem regions, where yield per ha in 1974 was 24.5 and 25.6 q, respectively. The Central Chernozem Region leads in spring wheat yield at 19.1 q per ha.

Other grain crops include rye, corn, millet, buckwheat, and rice. The RSFSR leads the USSR in gross harvest of all these crops, except corn. In 1974 the republic produced more than two-thirds of the total yield of rye (11 million tons), more than one-half of the millet (1.7 million tons) and rice (970,000 tons), and three-fifths of the buckwheat (600,000 tons) and legumes (5.5 million tons). Corn production is 2.1 million tons. Rye and buckwheat are typical crops grown in the Nonchernozem Zone. Millet is raised primarily in the forest-steppe and steppe zones, especially in the Volga and Central Chernozem regions.

The largest producers of legumes are the Volga and Central Chernozem regions. Rice is grown in the lower courses of the Kuban’, Terek, and other rivers in the Northern Caucasus; the Volga-Akhtuba floodplain in the Volga Region; and the Khanka Lowland in the Far East Region. Industrial crops, including sugar beets and sunflowers, are raised in addition to wheat in the forest-steppe and steppe zones. East of the Volga, spring wheat is grown rather than winter wheat, and less area is given to industrial crops. Rye and fiber flax are major crops in the forest zone.

The RSFSR accounts for more than two-fifths of the area in the Soviet Union planted with industrial crops, more than one-half of the area planted with potatoes, vegetables, and melons, and about three-fifths of the area planted with fodder crops. In 1974 the republic produced 41 percent of the gross output of flax fiber (167,000 tons), 50 percent of the sunflowers (3.4 million tons), more than 25 percent of the sugar beets (20.4 million tons), about 50 percent of the potatoes (39.6 million tons), and 43 percent of the vegetables (10.8 million tons). The principal regions of flax-fiber cultivation (yield of 2.6 q per ha) are the Central Region, which accounts for about 60 percent of the gross output, and the Northwest, which accounts for more than 25 percent. Sunflower cultivation (12.8 q per ha) is most important in the Northern Caucasus, which accounts for about 50 percent of the gross output, and the Central Chernozem Region, which accounts for 17 percent. The Central Chernozem and Northern Caucasus regions are the major growers of sugar beets (134 q per ha), producing in excess of 40 and 30 percent of the gross yield, respectively. About 25 percent of the gross output of potatoes (89 q per ha) is produced in the Central Region. The most important regions of vegetable cultivation (142 q per ha) are the Central Region, which produces 21.5 percent of the gross output, and the Northern Caucasus, which produces 20 percent.

In 1974, 30 percent of the area in the USSR planted with fruit, berries, and grapes was in the RSFSR. This land amounted to some 1.5 million ha, of which 200,000 ha were vineyards. The gross yield of fruits and berries is 2.4 million tons, or 30.2 percent of the national total, and the grape harvest is 700,000 tons, or about 15 percent of the national total. The principal areas for fruit and berry cultivation are the Northern Caucasus and Central regions, and vineyards are concentrated almost entirely in the Northern Caucasus.

According to 1974 data, the RSFSR has 3.3 million ha of irrigated land, or some 25 percent of the nationwide total, and 4.2 million ha of drained land, or 30 percent of the nationwide total. Irrigated lands are concentrated in the Northern Caucasus, where more than 45 percent are found, and the Volga Region, where 24 percent are found. More than 26 percent of the drained lands are in the Northwest, more than 22 percent are in the Central Region, and more than 11 percent are in the Far East. Irrigated lands are used primarily to grow fodder and grain crops, potatoes, vegetables, and melons and as hayfields and pastures. Fodder crops are planted on irrigated lands in all the economic regions. In the Northern Caucasus and Far East, grain crops predominate, whereas potatoes, vegetables, and melons are the leading crops in the Central and Ural regions. Hayfields and pastures predominate on irrigated lands in the Volga-Viatka and Central Chernozem regions and in Western and Eastern Siberia.

Plans call for accelerated development of the Volga-Akh tuba floodplain in order to increase output of vegetables, melons, and rice. Construction is continuing on the large water-conservation units of the Kuibyshev Irrigation System and in the vicinity of the Bol’shoi Stavropol’ and Saratov canals. The Ni-kolaevskaia Hydroengineering Complex on the Don River has been built and the Don Main Canal will be widened. Engineering systems to aid in rice growing are under construction in Krasnodar Krai, Astrakhan and Rostov oblasts, and Primor’e Krai.

Animal breeding. Vast hayfields and pastures (86.4 million ha in 1974) and extensive lands under fodder crops create favorable conditions for animal breeding. The RSFSR has more than 50 percent of all the country’s cattle, 50 percent of the swine, 45 percent of the sheep and goats, 100 percent of the reindeer, and 55 percent of the poultry (see Table 9).

Table 9. Livestock population of the RSFSR1 (millions of head)
1 For all types of farms at the beginning of the year
Sheep and goats ....

Most of the cattle, swine, reindeer, and poultry are bred on sovkhozes and other state farms, whereas sheep are raised mainly on kolkhozes. A good deal of livestock is kept on the privately worked subsidiary farms of the kolkhozniks, manual workers, and office workers. The largest numbers of cattle are in the Volga, Central, and Western Siberian regions, which together account for more than 40 percent of the total. The most important swine-breeding areas are in the Northern Caucasus, Volga, and Central Chernozem regions, which together account for more than 50 percent of the total. Sheep and goats are concentrated in the Volga Region, the Northern Caucasus, and Eastern Siberia (more than 60 percent), reindeer are mostly in the Far East (57 percent), and poultry are concentrated in the Central Region, the Northern Caucasus, and the Volga Region (about 50 percent).

The RSFSR produces more than one-half of the USSR’s meat (7.3 million tons dressed weight in 1974), more than one-half of the milk (48.8 million tons), almost three-fifths of the eggs (32 billion), and about one-half of the wool (228,000 tons). The major meat-producing regions are the Volga Region, the Northern Caucasus, and the Central Region, which together produce 50 percent of the total. The leaders in milk production are the Central, Volga, and Western Siberian regions, which account for more than 47 percent of production. The Central, Volga, and Northern Caucasus regions lead in egg production, together producing almost 50 percent of the total, and most wool—more than 72 percent—comes from the Northern Caucasus, the Volga Region, and Eastern Siberia.

Steps are being taken to establish a strong fodder base for animal breeding. Yield is rising significantly and there is increased production of legume and grain forage crops, root crops, perennial and annual grasses, and silage crops.

Table 10 shows the changes in state purchases of agricultural products.

Table 10. State purchases of agricultural output of the RSFSR
Grain crops (million tons) ........24.229.545.743.0
Sunflower seeds (million tons) .....
Sugar beets (million tons) ........3.018.321.418.7
Livestock and poultry liveweight (million tons)...............
Milk (million tons) .............4.214.925.330.3
Eggs (billions) ...............1.53.911.219.2
Wool (thousand tons)...........68.0166.0217.0251.0

The agriculture of the RSFSR, like that of the other Union republics, is seeking to increase productivity through the introduction of chemical methods and products, comprehensive mechanization of crop farming and animal breeding, and large-scale land reclamation. Plans also call for improving the distribution of production, increasing specialization and concentration of production, and making more efficient use of agricultural land, technology, and the labor resources of kolkhozes and sovkhozes. A major role is played by the establishment of poultry farms and large state, kolkhoz, and interkolkhoz complexes to produce livestock output on a production-type basis near cities. Scientific and technological progress typically leads to the development of production contacts between agricultural and industrial enterprises and the emergence of agroin-dustrial complexes and associations.

A program has been worked out for the development of agriculture in the Nonchernozem Zone, which includes the Northwest, Central, and Volga-Viatka economic regions; Kaliningrad, Sverdlovsk, and Perm’ oblasts; and the Udmurt ASSR. The Nonchernozem Zone plays a major role in agriculture: although it has only 9.1 percent of the country’s agricultural land, it produces 15 percent of the gross agricultural output, specializing in dairy farming and the growing of potatoes, vegetables, and flax fiber. Agricultural production in the Nonchernozem Zone is impeded by the low natural fertility of the land, excessive moisture and swampiness, the scattered land use, and other factors. Therefore, in the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR On Measures for the Further Development of Agriculture in the Nonchernozem Zone of the RSFSR (1974), land reclamation and the introduction of chemical methods and products figure as the basis for raising the fertility of the land and increasing the yield of all crops and the productivity of natural feed lands. Alongside measures to increase agricultural production in the Nonchernozem Zone, socioeconomic measures are also planned, including housing and road construction and improvement of medical, domestic, and commercial services to the rural population.

Transportation. The territorial division of labor within the RSFSR and the mutual ties between sectors of the economy and economic regions are supported by all types of modern transportation. According to 1974 figures, the transportation system of the RSFSR handles 3,388 billion ton-km, or 69 percent, of the total freight traffic in the USSR. The RSFSR has about three-fifths of the total length of general-use railroads (78,900 km in 1974), more than two-fifths of the hard-surfaced motor vehicle roads (273,000 km), more than four-fifths of the internal waterways (126,000 km), and four-fifths of the trunk pipelines for petroleum and petroleum products (42,000 km). Between 1941 and 1974 the network of railroads grew by a factor of 1.3; that of internal waterways, by a factor of approximately 1.4; that of hard-surfaced motor vehicle roads, by a factor greater than 4; and that of trunk pipelines, by a factor greater than 22. On Jan. 1, 1975, per 10,000 sq km of territory the RSFSR had 46 km of railroads, 74 km of internal waterways, 160 km of hard-surfaced motor vehicle roads, and 28 km of trunk pipelines. The transportation network gradually grows less dense as one travels from the European USSR eastward.

Although freight transport by pipeline and motor vehicle has shown the highest growth rates, railroad transport continues to lead in freight traffic overall. In 1974, railroad transport accounted for 61.8 percent of freight transport; river transport, for 5.9 percent; motor vehicle transport, for 5 percent; sea transport, for 13.6 percent; and pipeline transport, for 13.6 percent. In the RSFSR, in contradistinction to the other Union republics, shipping within the republic clearly predominates, with nine-tenths of all freight shipments originating and terminating in the republic.

RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION. Railroad transportation is the principal means of maintaining interregional economic ties, accounting for some two-thirds of freight traffic (2,097 billion ton-km) and more than three-fifths of passenger traffic. In addition to general-purpose railroads there are 87,000 km of sidings, but freight traffic on the latter is not significant. The densest rail network is found in the Central, Central Chernozem, Northern Caucasus, Volga-Viatka, Volga, and Ural regions.

The most important trunk lines connecting the Central Region with the other economic regions of the RSFSR and with the Union republics are the following: Moscow-Kui-byshev-Cheliabinsk-Omsk-Novosibirsk-Krasnoiarsk-Irkutsk-Khabarovsk-Vladivostock (Trans-Siberian), Moscow-Perm’-Sverdlovsk, Moscow-Orenburg-Tashkent, Moscow-Leningrad-Murmansk, Moscow-Vologda-Arkhangel’sk, Moscow-Minsk-Brest, Moscow-Kiev-Odessa, Moscow-Kharkov-Sevastopol’, and Moscow-Rostov-on-Don-Baku.

During the years of Soviet power, and especially after the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), many new railroads have been built, including the following: Konosha-Kotlas-Vorkuta, Obozerskaia-Belomorsk, Sviiazhsk-Ul’ianovsk-Syzran’-Sara-tov-Ilovlia, Astrakhan-Kizliar, Magnitogorsk-Tselinograd-Barnaul-Novokuznetsk-Abakan-Taishet (Southern Siberian), Aidyrlia-Tobol-Kustanai-Kokchetav-Karasuk-Barnaul (Central Siberian), Taishet-Bratsk-Ust’-Kut, and Komsomol’sk-na-Amure-Sovetskaia Gavan’. The railroads have made it possible to put new raw-material and fuel-energy resources to industrial use, bolstered the most heavily used routes, and connected trunk lines.

The length of railroads converted to electric and diesel traction was 72,700 km in 1974, or 92 percent of the entire rail network. Trunk lines with the greatest freight traffic, segments of railroads passing over difficult terrain, and suburban lines with heavy passenger traffic have been electrified. The most important of these lines are the following: Moscow-Kuibyshev-Che-liabinsk-Novosibirsk-Irkutsk-Sliudianka, Moscow-Gorky-Perm’-Sverdlovsk, Moscow-Leningrad, Moscow-Kiev, Moscow-Kharkov, and Moscow-Rostov-on-Don-Tuapse-Tbilisi and the suburban sections of the Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Kuibyshev, and Novosibirsk railroad junctions.

In 1974 railroad transportation carried 1,980 million tons of freight, principally hard coal, coke, petroleum, ferrous metals, lumber, grain, mineral building materials, and mineral fertilizers. For the RSFSR as a whole, the amount of freight dispatched somewhat exceeds the amount brought in. The amount of freight dispatched is greater than the amount brought in in the Northwestern, Volga, Northern Caucasus, Western Siberian, and Eastern Siberian regions, whereas the opposite is true in the Central, Central Chernozem, Volga-Viatka, Ural, and Far East regions. The main objective in developing railroad transportation is to increase the traffic and carrying capacity of the railroads. Plans call for building second tracks, especially from the Urals to the Volga and Central regions (Sverdlovsk-Kazan-Moscow), from the Kuznetsk Basin to the Urals (Altaiskaia-Omsk), and from Siberia to southern Kazakhstan and Middle Asia.

Individual lines with heavy freight and passenger traffic, including those in the suburbs of large cities, will be electrified. In 1975 the Tiumen’-Tobol’sk-Surgut line went into operation. Construction is being completed on the Krasnodar-Tuapse and Beloretsk-Chishmy lines. In 1974 construction began on the Baikal-Amur Main Line (BAM), which will be 3,145 km long and follow the route Ust’-Kut (Lena Station)-Nizhnean-garsk-Chara-Tynda-Bam-Nora-Urgal-Berezovka-Komso-mol’sk-na-Amure. In May 1975 the first train traveled the Bam-Tynda section.

RIVER TRANSPORTATION. The RSFSR has the most important water routes in the Soviet Union, including the Volga-Kama, Ob’-Irtysh, Enisei, Lena, and Amur rivers. The development of river transport was greatly aided by the creation of the Baltic-White Sea, Moscow, and V. I. Lenin Volga-Don ship canals, the redesigning of the Volga-Baltic Waterway, and the building of hydroelectric-power complexes on the Volga and Kama rivers. According to 1974 figures, the freight traffic of river transport in the RSFSR is 199 billion ton-km, or almost 94 percent of the nationwide total. River transportation trails only motor vehicle and rail transportation in the quantity of freight shipped (387 million tons). The most important cargoes are building materials—which account for about half of the total—lumber, petroleum, and petroleum products. The Volga basin, which encompasses economic regions of great industrial potential, accounts for approximately half of the freight traffic. River transportation is receiving preferential development in the eastern regions to aid in the opening up of raw-material and fuel-energy resources. Freight shipping is growing at faster rates in the basins of the Ob’, Irtysh, Enisei, Lena, and Amur.

SEA TRANSPORTATION. Sea transportation handles a significant portion of the country’s foreign trade and coastal shipping, both large-scale (for example, along the Northern Sea Route) and small-scale. The Soviet Union’s most important seaports are in the RSFSR: Novorossiisk (the largest in the country in terms of freight traffic), Leningrad, Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Arkhangel’sk, and Vladivostok. Work is in progress to further enlarge the traffic capacity of the ports of Vladivostok, Vanino, Murmansk, and Leningrad. A deep-water port was under construction near Nakhodka in 1975.

MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION. Motor vehicle transportation plays a prominent part in overall transportation, especially in intraregional shipping. Although it trails other types of transportation, except air transportation, in freight turnover, it leads in the amount of freight carried—10.8 billion tons in 1974. The most important highways are the following: Moscow-Leningrad, Moscow-Minsk, Moscow-Kiev, Moscow-Simferopol’, Moscow-Gorky-Kazan, Moscow-Kuibyshev, Bol’shoi Never-Yakutsk, and Magadan-Ust’-Nera. Construction is being completed on the Kuibyshev-Ufa-Cheliabinsk, Leningrad-Murmansk, and Moscow-Kaluga-Briansk-Sevsk highways and individual sections of other highways.

AIR TRANSPORTATION. Air transportation has developed greatly in the RSFSR because of the growth in passenger traffic—primarily over long and medium distances—and the necessity of improving links with remote and inaccessible regions. Major air transportation centers include Moscow, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk, Krasnoiarsk, Irkutsk, Khabarovsk, Omsk, and other administrative centers of the RSFSR. The Moscow-Khabarovsk-Vladivostok route and its branches serve the Urals, Western and Eastern Siberia, the Far North, the Yakut ASSR, and the Far East, including the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka. In 1974 air transportation carried more than 58 million passengers and 1.8 million tons of freight and mail. Corresponding figures for 1960 were 9.5 million passengers and 500,000 tons of freight.

PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION. As petroleum and gas extraction increases, pipeline transportation is rapidly becoming more important. As of Jan. 1, 1975, the total length of pipelines used to transport petroleum and petroleum products was 42,000 km. Among the most important pipelines is the Druzhba petroleum pipeline, which runs as follows: Al’met’evsk-Kuibyshev-Une-cha-Mozyr’-Brest, Unecha-Ventspils, and Unecha-Uzhgorod, and then continues into Poland, the German Republic, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, for a total of 7,000 km. Other important pipelines are the following: Tuimazy-Omsk-Novosibirsk-Krasnoiarsk-Angarsk (3,700 km), Ust’-Balyk-Kurgan-Ufa-Al’met’evsk (1,800 km), Al’met’evsk-Gorky-Yaroslavl-Kirishi, Aleksandrovskoe-Anzhero-Sudzhensk, and Ust’-Balyk-Omsk. More Western Siberian petroleum will be transported thanks to the Omsk-Pavlodar-Chimkent pipeline that is now under construction.

The chief gas pipelines are the pipeline connecting Middle Asia and the Central Zone and the Siianie Severa Pipeline, which runs Vuktyl-Ukhta-Torzhok and has a branch to Rybinsk. The Sibir’-Maskva trunk gas pipeline, which will be 3,000 km long, is under construction (1975); the pipeline will run along the following route: Medvezh’e-Nadym-Punga-Nizhniaia Tura-Perm’-Izhevsk-Kazan-Gorky-Moscow.

Economic regions. Within the RSFSR, several major economic regions have developed historically, differing from one another in the conditions and characteristics of their formation, in size, and in the structure and specialization of industry (see Table 11). Each of these regions performs certain functions within the overall system of the territorial division of labor within the country.

The economic regions of the RSFSR differ significantly not only in the degree to which their territory is developed and to which natural and labor resources are available but also according to the directions in which productive forces have developed. The regions in the European part of the republic, where most of the population, materials, and capital equipment are concentrated, have enormous economic potential but are deficient in fuel-energy resources. They therefore concentrate on increasing production capacities, modernizing established industry, and creating enterprises in labor-intensive sectors. In order to achieve a more efficient use of labor resources, new enterprises will be established primarily in medium-sized and small cities, which have work-force reserves.

A number of major industrial centers are being rebuilt. A major regional production complex is being established in the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly. The Tol’iatti and Nizhniaia Kama industrial complexes are growing; the complexes consist of large motor vehicle plants and associated enterprises and numerous chemical enterprises working with petroleum and gas. Great significance is being attached to strengthening the fuel-energy base by developing new petroleum and natural gas deposits and building atomic power plants.

The eastern regions are less heavily settled and less developed. Although they constitute three-fourths of the land area of the RSFSR, they have only one-fifth of the republic’s population. At the same time, however, they have the most plentiful and most efficient raw-material and fuel-energy resources. This is reflected in the specialization of the region’s industry, which produces some 30 percent of the RSFSR’s electricity, more than 70 percent of the coal, more than 40 percent of the petroleum and natural gas, 71 percent of the cast iron, more than 50 percent of the timber, and about 20 percent of the chemical fibers.

In the future, development of the eastern regions will concentrate basically on the energy-intensive sectors of industry. Especially high growth rates characterize the extraction of petroleum, natural gas, and inexpensive coal; the generation of electric power; and the production of energy-intensive output. Particularly high growth rates are also observable in ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy and the chemical and lumber industries. New regional production complexes are being established that make use of the great fuel-energy resources of the regions; these include the Western Siberian, Saian, and Bratsk-Ust’-Ilimsk complexes. There is constant improvement in the territorial division of labor and the mutual ties between the European part of the RSFSR and the eastern regions of the republic.

Standard of living. The standard of living in the RSFSR is steadily rising. National income rose 80 percent between 1966

Table 11. Economic regions of the RSFSR and their share of territory, population, and production output (1974, percentage of total)
Economic regionTerritoryPopulationProduction
   ElectricityPigironWood (shipped)CementFabricsGrain
Central..............2.821.4Standard of living28.57.914.081.09.9
Central Chernozem ......
Volga-Viatka ..........
Northern Caucasus ......
Ural ................4.011.717.353.
Western Siberian........14.29.410.418.
Eastern Siberian ........24.25.815.918.
Far East .............

and 1973, and real per capita incomes in 1973 were 50 percent greater than in 1965. From 1971 to 1975, pension support was improved and stipends for students were increased, with increases of 25 percent for students at higher educational institutions and 50 percent for students at special secondary schools and technical schools in the vocational-technical educational system. The norms for food expenditures and medicine costs in hospitals were also raised.

The average monthly wage for manual and office workers in 1974 was 147.5 rubles, more than four times the 1940 figure. Between 1971 and 1974, wages were raised for a total of 32 million manual and office workers. Expenditures for sociocultural activities and science increased by a factor of almost 16 between 1940 and 1974, reaching a total of 25.9 billion rubles, or 50 percent of all state budget expenditures in the RSFSR.

Urban housing resources in the RSFSR at the end of 1974 amounted to 1,069.3 million sq m of total (usable) area. Between 1966 and 1974, state and cooperative enterprises and organizations, kolkhozes, and the public built 11,828,000 apartments with a total (usable) area of 526.4 million sq m. More than 57.6 million people improved their housing conditions during this period.

Retail trade in the state and cooperative systems, including the food service industry, totaled some 115 billion rubles in 1974, 7.2 times more than in 1940. At the beginning of 1975 the RSFSR had 274,800 stores and 140,700 food service enterprises. In 1974 there were 46,100 savings banks, with deposits totaling 40.7 billion rubles, or 86.4 times more than in 1940.


Materialy XXIV s”ezda KPSS. Moscow, 1971.
Gosudarstvennyi piatiletnii plan razvitiia narodnogo khoziaistva SSSR na 1971–1975 gody. Moscow, 1972.
Narodnoe khoziaistvo RSFSR v 1973. Moscow, 1974.
Promyshlennost’ RSFSR. Moscow, 1961.
Rossiiskaia Federatsiia. Moscow, 1959.
Rossiiskaia Federatsiia: Evropeiskii Sever. Moscow, 1971. (Sovetskii Soiuz series.)
Rossiiskaia Federatsiia: Evropeiskii Iugo-Vostok. Moscow, 1968. (Sovetskii Soiuz series.)
Rossiskaia Federatsiia: Zapadnaia Sibir’. Moscow, 1971. (Sovetskii Soiuz series.)
Rossiskaia Federatsiia: Vostochnaia Sibir’. Moscow, 1969. (Sovetskii Soiuz series.)
Rossiskaia Federatsiia: Dal’nii Vostok. Moscow, 1971. (Sovetskii Soiuz series.)
Ekonomicheskaia geografiia SSSR, part 2: Ekonomicheskie raiony. Moscow, 1973.
Ekonomicheskaia geografiia SSSR [vol.2]: RSFSR. Moscow, 1974.
Ekonomicheskie raiony SSSR. Moscow, 1965.


Elementary forms of public health originated among the ancient Slavs during the era of early feudalism (ninth-12th centuries). The grand princes Vladimir Sviatoslavich and Iaroslav the Wise in 996 and 1096, respectively, assigned medical affairs to the monasteries, thus facilitating the development of monastic medicine. Folk medicine was practiced as well. In the late 16th century, the Aptekarskaia Palata (Pharmaceutical Chamber), later the Aptekarskii Prikaz (Pharmaceutical Department), was organized, the first government body for administering medical affairs.

In the 18th century, public health was administered by the Medical Collegium. According to a law of 1775, central administrative offices for community service were established in the provinces, as was the post of district physician. Philanthropic (“pleasing to god”) and medical institutions were transferred to the jurisdiction of these offices. In 1797, medical boards were established in all gubernia (province) cities with the exception of Moscow and St. Petersburg. District medical boards—local bodies for administering medical affairs—were then instituted.

In 1803 the Medical Collegium was replaced by the Medical Department, which was part of the Ministry of the Interior. There was no single government body for administering public health, however, since each department had its own medical units. Beginning in the late 19th century, zemstvo, industrial, and urban medicine developed.

In prerevolutionary Russia the organization of public health was substantially worse than in the economically developed European countries, and the inhabitants of outlying regions in Russia were virtually without medical care. Outbreaks of such infectious diseases as cholera, smallpox, malaria, and typhus took place almost continuously, and tuberculosis, scabies, trachoma, and other diseases were widespread. The mortality rate was very high—29.1 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1913; among infants one year of age or under, the rate was about 27 percent.

After the October Revolution of 1917, the public health system was fundamentally reconstructed. This was reflected first and foremost in the indexes of the population’s health (see Table 12). By the 1970’s, the average life span was 2.5 times that of the prerevolutionary period.

Table 12. Birthrate, mortality, and natural population increase in Russia and the RSFSR (per thousand persons)
 BirthrateMortalityNatural increaseInfant mortality1
1 Per thousand live births
1913 .....47.832.415.4273
1940 .....33.020.612.4205
1950 .....26.910.116.888
1960 .....23.27.415.837
1970 .....
1974 .....

During the first months after the October Revolution, the Soviet government issued a number of decrees relating to public health: on the eight-hour workday, labor protection, social insurance, health care for mothers and children, and the nationalization of pharmacies and medical institutions and equipment. Medical care became free of charge and available to the general public. The organization of the Council of Doctors’ Collegiums (1918) marked the beginning of Soviet public health.

In the RSFSR, the organization of medical care and the development of a system of institutions for medical-preventive treatment led to the establishment of many types of polyclinics and hospitals. These facilities provide medical care to the population as a whole in networks of territorially organized public health services and to workers in industrial enterprises. Specialized

Table 13. Main indexes of the development of public health in Russia and the RSFSR
1The decline in the number of permanent day nurseries and of children attending them is explained by the establishment in 1960 of a unified system of “nursery-kindergartens” within the public-education system
Doctors, all specialties (thousands) ............15.990.8160.2251.4378.4451.1
Doctors, all specialties (per 10,000 inhabitants).....
Intermediate medical personnel (thousands) ......26.0290.4450.5817.11,212.31,362.5
Hospitals (thousands)...................3.28.510.514.313.813.2
Hospital beds (thousands)..................133.4482.0609.8990.91,469.31,610.7
Hospital beds (per 10,000 inhabitants)...........14.843.359.282.1112.4120.4
Emergency medical-care stations .............6617951,0381,8212,037
Permanent day nurseries1 (thousands) ..........0.01414.412.417.513.411.2
Children in permanent day nurseries1 (thousands) ..........1.4514.4408.7888.1821.6750.8

tuberculosis, dermatovenereal, psychoneurological, oncological, and exercise therapy dispensaries were also established. The main indexes of the development of public health are given in Table 13.

By 1975, specialized hospital beds numbered as follows (in thousands): therapeutics, 341.5; surgery, 226.8; oncology, 27.8; otolaryngology, 22; ophthalmology, 21.3; neurology, 48.1; gynecology, 102.2; for pregnant women and women giving birth, 106.6; and for children’s infections, 192.7. Outpatient care was provided in 19,000 outpatient polyclinics and 890 medical-hygiene units at industrial enterprises. There were 1,553 dispensaries, including 620 for tuberculosis, 120 for oncology, 368 for dermatovenereal diseases, 128 for psychoneu-rology, and 228 for exercise therapy. Specialized care for women and children was provided at 6,000 consultation clinics and 6,100 pediatric polyclinics and outpatient clinics.

In 1974 there were 2,700 epidemiological stations and epidemiological divisions of a unified system of hospitals (in 1940 there were 695) and 65,200 pharmacies and pharmaceutical centers (in 1940, 12,000). The number of physicians serving the population is continually increasing (see Table 14).

Rapid progress in public health is taking place in the autonomous republics (see Table 15). During the prewar five-year plans, the number of doctors in Siberia, the Urals, and the Far East increased at rates surpassing the average increase for the RSFSR as a whole. Before the Revolution there were 2,000 physicians of all specialties in these areas—12.5 percent of the total number of physicians in Russia; by 1940 their number had increased to 17,400, 19.1 percent of the total number of physicians in the RSFSR. On Jan. 1, 1975, there were 123,500 physicians of all specialties in the Urals, Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East. The number of hospital beds in relation to the populations of Siberia, the Urals, and the Far East was substantially higher than that for the RSFSR as a whole. In 1974 there were 120.4 beds for every 10,000 inhabitants of the RSFSR. For the Ural region the figure was 125.1, for Western Siberia, 129.5, for Eastern Siberia, 124.9, and for the Far East, 136.5.

In the 1974–75 academic year, physicians and pharmacists were being trained at 45 medical institutes and five medical departments of universities; the total number of students was 175,700. There were 379 specialized secondary schools of public health, with a total of 240,700 students.

As of Jan. 1, 1975, problems of medicine were being studied at 186 medical scientific institutions, including higher educational institutions; of this number, 132 were scientific research institutes. There was a total of 33,000 researchers in all branches of medical science.

The RSFSR has an extensive system of sanatoriums, houses of rest, and resort hotels. In 1973 there were 251,100 sanatorium beds (134,600 in 1940) and 185,500 beds in houses of rest and resort hotels (126,400 in 1940). There are health resorts of nearly every type. The largest are in the south, in the Stavropol’ and Krasnodar krais; they include the Caucasian Mineral Waters (Essentuki, Kislovodsk, Zheleznovodsk, and Piati-gorsk), the health resorts of the Black Sea-Caucasus coast (Sochi, Anapa, Gelendzhik, Kabardinka), Eisk, Goriachii Kliuch, Teberda, Nal’chik, Sernovodsk-Kavkazskii, and Talgi.

The most important health resorts in other regions include the Belokurikha, Darasun, Izhevskie Mineral’nye Vody, Kuka, Kul’dur, Nizhnie Sergi, Paratunka, Ust’-Kachka, Khilovo, and Shmakovka balneological resorts and the pelotherapy resorts of Varzi-Iatchi, Ozero-Karachi, Lipetsk, Moltaevo, Sadgorod, Ti-naki, Ugdan, and El’ton.

Climatic health resorts are in the Leningrad health resort region, the Vladivostok health resort zone, Olentui, and Chemal. Climatic resorts providing koumiss therapy are in Aksakovo, Aksenovo, Krasnaia Poliana, Lebiazh’e, Lesnoi Manych, Step-noi Maiak, the Verkhnetroitskoe koumiss therapy region, Sha-franovo, Iumatovo, and Iutaza.

There are climatobalneological and balneopeloid resorts in Arshan, Bakirovo, Kashin, Kisegach, Krainka, Krasnousol’-skii, Kur’i, Medvezh’e, Sergievskie Mineral’nye Vody, Staraia Russa, Talaia, Uvil’dy, Usol’e, Uchum, Shivanda, Shira, and lamarovka.

According to the 1974 state budget, expenditures for public health and physical culture in the RSFSR amounted to 5,902 million rubles (495.7 million rubles in 1940; 2,434.5 million rubles in 1960). Expenditures for public health were also made by state, cooperative, and trade union organizations and by kolkhozes.


Trofimov, V. V. Zdravookhranenie i zdorov’e naseleniia Rossiiskoi Federalsii k 50-letiiu Velikoi Oktiabr’skoi sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii. Moscow, 1967.
Physical culture, sports, and tourism. Modern forms of physical culture and sports began developing in Russia in the mid-19th century. Sports circles and clubs and gymnastics societies were founded, and in the late 19th century workers’ sports organizations were established. In 1914 there were 1,200 sports organizations with some 50,000 members, chiefly from the privileged classes, in 332 cities and settlements. In 1908 and 1912, Russian athletes took part in the Olympic Games. The Russian speed skaters A. N. Panshin, N. I. Sedov, N. V. Strunnikov, and V. A. Ippolitov, the figure skater N. A. Panin-Kolomenkin, the wrestlers I. M. Poddubnyi and I. M. Zaikin, and the fencer T. I. Klimov performed successfully in international competitions.
After the October Revolution of 1917, the universal military training (vsevobuch) circles and clubs initiated a mass physical-culture movement. The first All-Russian Athletic Festival was held in Moscow in 1923. In 1928 the athletes of the RSFSR took the overall lead at the, first All-Union Sports Competition. In the 1930’s, committees for physical culture and sports were established in the autonomous republics, krais, oblasts, cities, and raions of the RSFSR, and physical-culture associations were established in offices and factories. The Ready for Labor
Table 14. Number of physicians in the RSFSR according to main specialties (thousands)
Therapeutists ......................................24.33355.976.493.9
Surgeons ......................................7.713.423.338.146.7
Obstetricians-gynecologists ......................................6.39.916.723.527.5
Pediatricians ......................................12.420.53545.252.3
Ophthalmologists ......................................2.23.469.210.1
Otorhinolaryngologists ......................................
Neuropathologists ......................................
Psychiatrists ......................................
Phthisiotherapeutists ......................................
Dermatologists-venereologists ......................................2.655.16.67.6
Roentgenologists and radiologists ......................................
Physicians specializing in exercise therapy and sports ..............0.30.511.92.3
Epidemiologists ......................................7.413.51822.625.5
Stomatologists ......................................24.77.520.325.6
Dentists ...................................8.711.218.33131.4
Table 15. Development of public health in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR
 Number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitantsNumber of physicians per 10,000 inhabitants
Bashkir ASSR...............26.1105.93.221.8
Buriat ASSR................39.7121.77.625.2
Chechen-Ingush ASSR.........30.893.65.721.8
Chuvash ASSR..............27.9104.83.319.6
Dagestan ASSR .............31.392.55.725.6
Kabarda-Balkar ASSR .........37.8105.16.732.7
Kalmyk ASSR...............22.9138.53.226.1
Karelian ASSR..............55.1149.37.436.5
Komi ASSR ................53.5145.28.131.7
Mari ASSR.................36.9119.64.024.4
Mordovian ASSR.............25.2110.82.621.4
Severnaia Osetiia ASSR ........41.8114.99.848.8
Tatar ASSR ................36.2107.66.226.7
Tuva ASSR ................47.3157.210.627.7
Udmurt ASSR...............36.6104.74.430.0
Yakut ASSR................44.5154.77.431.1
and Defense of the USSR system became the basis of the physical-culture movement.
Since the 1950’s, republic-wide summer and winter sports competitions with 12 million to 30 million participants have been held every four years. Winners of the summer sports competitions of the peoples of the USSR have been as follows: in 1956, 1959, 1963, and 1967, the Moscow combined team, and from 1971 to 1975, the combined team of the autonomous republics, krais, and oblasts of the RSFSR. In 1962 and 1966 the Moscow team was victorious in the winter games, and in 1974, the Leningrad team. National forms of sports have been developed. The Unified All-Russian Classification of National Sports, established in 1970, includes 17 sports, among them races with reindeer and dog teams, national wrestling competitions, lapta (a folk team game), and one-hand weight lifting.
In 1974 the RSFSR had more than 109,000 physical-culture associations with 25.7 million members, united in the republic-wide councils of the Burevestnik, Dynamo, Spartak, and Tru-dovye Rezervy all-Union sports societies. The Russian voluntary sports society Trud, founded in 1957, unites more than 9,000 physical-culture associations with more than 15 million members, and the Urozhai voluntary society, founded in 1936, unites more than 31,000 physical-culture associations with more than 16 million members. In 1974 there were about 2,500 children’s and young people’s sports schools, with more than 800,000 pupils and students, 100 schools specializing in sports training, with more than 20,000 students, seven institutes and 15 technicums of physical culture, and a Central School for Coaches.
In 1974 more than 30 honored masters of sports, about 250 international-class masters of sports, and more than 3,700 masters of sports were trained. Some 239 athletes won the title of world or European champion, and 550 the title of champion of the USSR. The champions of the Olympic Games included 345 athletes from the RSFSR. As of 1975, more than 1,500 persons had been awarded the title of Honored Coach of the RSFSR and more than 500, Honored Coach of the USSR.
There are about 1,700 stadiums in the RSFSR, the largest of which are three in Moscow with more than 100,000, 56,000, and 40,000 seats, respectively; two in Leningrad with about 100,000 and 30,000 seats; and one each in Volgograd (39,000 seats), Krasnoiarsk (35,000), Rostov-on-Don (30,000), Kazan (25,000), Krasnodar (25,000), and Stavropol’ (20,000). There are 22 sports palaces, more than 500 swimming pools, of which 346 are indoor and 46 are 50-meter pools, more than 30,000 gymnasiums for games and sports, about 57,000 soccer fields, and 33 track-and-field gymnasiums. The RSFSR also has more than 5,000 sports health camps and more than 3,000 lodges for hunters and fishermen.
The main tourist regions in the RSFSR are the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus as far as the Psekups River, the Northern Caucasus, including the Caucasian Mineral Waters, and the northwestern part of the republic, including Leningrad Oblast, Karelia, the Kola Peninsula, and Kizhi. Other tourist areas are the Volga, Ural, and Altai regions, the Saian ranges, Lake Baikal, the Amur Region, and the Primor’e. Major tourist centers include Moscow, Leningrad, Sochi, Gorky, Ul’ianovsk, Kuibyshev, Volgograd, Sverdlovsk, Cheliabinsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoiarsk, Irkutsk, and Vladivostok. Other tourist centers are the ancient cities of Novgorod, Pskov, Vologda, Yaroslavl, Ros-tov-Iaroslavskii, Kostroma, Vladimir, Suzdal’, Smolensk, and Kalinin, as well as the Pushkin Preserve and Iasnaia Poliana.
Excursions are made on the Volga-Baltic waterway, the Volga, Oka, Kama, Ob’, Enisei, Lena, and Amur rivers, and cruises take place on the Black and Baltic seas. In 1974 there were 73 krai and oblast councils on tourism and excursions, 200 travel and excursion bureaus, and about 400 trade union tourist centers, hotels, and camping sites. There were more than 2,500 tourist routes, including about 200 all-Union routes, and nine mountain-climbing camps in the Kabarda-Balkar ASSR and Severnaia Osetiia ASSR areas of the Northern Caucasus.
Veterinary services. During the period of Soviet power, a number of dangerous infectious diseases of agricultural animals have been eliminated, including pneumonia of cattle, rinderpest, equine infectious anemia, and glanders. Anthrax now occurs only in sporadic cases, and the incidence of other infectious diseases, including hog cholera, swine erysipelas, and brucellosis in cattle, has been substantially lowered. The incidence of parasitic diseases has been lowered as well. By 1973, 16 oblasts and autonomous republics were free of tuberculosis in cattle.
In a number of economic regions of the RSFSR, Q fever and tularemia are naturally endemic. Natural and geographic conditions cause periodic outbreaks of babesiasis, theileriasis, and anaplasmosis of cattle, equine piroplasmosis and nuttalliasis, babesiasis of sheep and goats, myiases, and hypodermosis. Coc-cidiosis is recorded among fowl, rabbits, cattle, sheep, and goats, and balantidiasis among swine. Helminthiases of cattle, swine, and sheep are prevalent. The abundance of horseflies and bloodsucking flies in some regions of the RSFSR adversely affects the productivity of livestock. Dyspepsia and lung diseases of young stock occur. The veterinary service carries out planned measures to combat and prevent these diseases.
In 1973 there were 29,200 veterinarians and 41,000 veterinary feldshers with specialized secondary education in the RSFSR. There were 18,690 veterinary institutions of various types, including 1,773 disease-control stations, 1,000 polyclinics and hospitals, 12,790 veterinary sections and centers, 1,180 laboratories, and 1,860 meat-dairy and food control stations. Veterinary specialists are trained in 22 veterinary institutes and departments and in 87 veterinary divisions of agricultural technicums. About 3,000 veterinarians and more than 6,700 veterinary feldshers are graduated annually.
The RSFSR has the State Scientific Control Institute of Veterinary Preparations, five all-Union and four republic veterinary research institutes, 18 veterinary research stations, nine scientific production veterinary laboratories, and three laboratories for diseases of fowl. Research in veterinary science is also conducted in subdepartments and laboratories of all veterinary higher educational institutions.


The history of public education in the territory of what is now the RSFSR originates in remote antiquity. In Kievan Rus’, elementary literacy was widespread among various strata of the population, as evidenced by beresto writings (letters and documents written on birchbark), the earliest of which date from the 11th century. There were church and monastery schools, and advanced schools at the princely court and the Kiev-Pecher-skaia Laura. The Mongol-Tatar yoke (13th-15th centuries) inflicted great harm on Russian culture.

The formation of the multinational Russian state in the 16th and 17th centuries and the emergence of printing led to an upsurge in the development of education. The first Slavonic-Russian primer was printed by Ivan Fedorov in 1574. Secondary grammar and Greco-Latin schools were opened in the 17th century, and in 1687 the Slavonic-Greco-Latin Academy, a higher general-education school, was founded in Moscow.

Peter I’s program of reforms devoted much attention to organizing secular state schools. The first specialized schools in Moscow were founded, including the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences and the Gunnery (artillery) School (1701), a medical school under the auspices of a military hospital (1707), and an engineering school (1712). In St. Petersburg, the Naval Academy was founded in 1715 and an engineering school in 1719. Metallurgical schools were founded in the Urals. Artillery schools were established in St. Petersburg (1712) and other large cities; navigational schools were founded in harbor cities.

The public demand for more extensive general education led to the development of higher education. Under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences, founded in St. Petersburg in 1724, the Academy University and Academy Gymnasium were established. However, education served the class interests of the dvorianstvo (gentry) state; the masses of the people remained illiterate.

Private educational institutions for the dvorianstvo arose in the 18th century, including cadet corps and institutes for wellborn girls. Enlightened pedagogical ideas were developed by 1.1. Betskoi, N. I. Novikov, and A. N. Radishchev, figures who also recognized the necessity of a state system of public education. M. V. Lomonosov contributed greatly to the development of education. In 1755, Moscow University was founded in accordance with his plan. Under the university’s auspices, two Gymnasiums were founded, for the dvorianstvo and for the raznochintsy (persons with no class affiliation).

In 1773 the Mining School was founded in St. Petersburg, and in 1779, the Land Surveying School in Moscow. In 1786 a school reform was carried out, initiating a system of public schools in Russia’s province and district capitals.

In the early 19th century, the Statute for Educational Institutions (1804) established a state system of sequential schools: one-year parish schools, two-year district schools, four-year province Gymnasiums, and three-year universities. The University of Kazan was founded in 1804, and the University of St. Petersburg in 1819. Three-year pedagogical institutes were opened at these universities. In 1816 the Chief Pedagogical Institute was established to replace the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute (1804–16). Similar in curricula to the universities were such lycées as the Tsarskoe Selo Lycée near St. Petersburg and the Demidov Lycée in Yaroslavl.

The development of capitalism in the first half of the 19th century led to the establishment of higher technical schools. In St. Petersburg, the Forestry Institute was founded (1803), as were the Institute of Transportation and Communications Engineers (1809), the Technological Institute (1828), and the Institute of Civil Engineers (1832). The Moscow Higher Technical School was founded in 1830. In the first half of the 19th century there were 20 Gymnasiums in Moscow and 17 in St. Petersburg. There were Gymnasiums and district and parish schools in almost every province capital. District capitals had schools as well, but in rural areas there were almost no educational institutions.

The social movement of the 1860’s led to reforms that centralized the school administration; the transformation of the school for the higher classes into the bourgeois school began. The Statute of 1864 established two types of secondary school: classical seven-year Gymnasiums that prepared students for the universities, and six-year Realgymnasiums that prepared them for higher technical schools. Women’s education developed somewhat, with the introduction of girls’ Gymnasiums and academies. The establishment of advanced courses for women initiated the development of women’s higher education.

In the 1860’s and 1870’s, the first zemstvo (district and provincial assembly) and government teachers’ seminaries were founded. Realschule were founded in 1872, and the number of church parish schools increased. The Petrovskoe Agricultural Academy was opened in Moscow in 1865, and the University of Tomsk in 1888. The social composition of the student body changed, many students belonging to social classes other than the dvorianstvo. By the mid-19th century, raznochintsy (the term now designated intellectuals of no definite class) constituted 38 percent of the student body at the University of St. Petersburg, 56 percent at the University of Kazan, and 57 percent at Moscow University. The percentage was greater at higher technical schools.

During the 19th century, revolutionary and democratic figures of the Russian liberation movement, including A. I. Herzen, V. G. Belinskii, N. G. Chernyshevskii, N. A. Dobroliu-bov, and D. I. Pisarev, sought to democratize education. Outstanding Russian educators included N. I. Pirogov, K. D. Ush-inskii, L. N. Tolstoy, V. la. Stoiunin, V. I. Vodovozov, V. P. Ostrogorskii, and P. F. Lesgaft. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in close association with the developing revolutionary workers’ movement in Russia, the principles of Marxist pedagogy were established. V. I. Lenin formulated the proletariat’s needs in the area of upbringing and education. The works of N. K. Krupskaia, particularly Public Education and Democracy (1915), aided greatly in the formation of a Marxist system of pedagogy.

In the public-education system of prerevolutionary Russia, primary schools included one-class schools with three or four years of instruction, two-class schools (five or six years), and four-class higher elementary schools (four years). Primary schools were affiliated with zemstvos, church parishes, municipal administrations, departments, and factories.

Secondary education was provided by boys’ eight-year and girls’ seven- or eight-year Gymnasiums, six- or seven-year Realschule, and seven- or eight-year commercial schools. Other schools providing secondary education were four- and six-year theological seminaries, seven-year cadet corps, eight-year institutes for wellborn girls, and seven- and eight-year eparchial schools. Specialized secondary educational institutions included trade, agricultural, and commercial schools.

Teachers were trained at four-year teachers’ seminaries and three-year teachers’ institutes. Higher education was provided at four-year universities, four- and five-year higher technical, agricultural, and economics schools, and four-year advanced courses for women and theological academies. A considerable disparity between the programs of primary and secondary schools, an uneven distribution of schools throughout Russia, and tuition requirements at secondary and higher educational institutions restricted the access of toilers’ children to education.

In the late 19th century, the level of education in Russia was lower than that of the developed European countries. According to the 1897 census, in the territory of what is now the RSFSR, the average literacy rate of persons aged nine to 49 was 29.6 percent. Among men the rate was 44.4 percent, and among women, 15.4 percent. In rural areas these figures were 24.6 percent, 39.5 percent, and 11 percent, respectively.

In Russia’s border regions, the literacy rate was much lower; among the Yakuts, for example, only 0.7 percent of the population could read. Many nationalities had no written language. In 1913, Lenin wrote: “There is no other country so barbarous and in which the masses of the people are robbed to such an extent of education, light and knowledge—no other such country has remained in Europe; Russia is the exception.… Four-fifths of the rising generation are doomed to illiteracy by the feudal state system of Russia” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. sock, 5th ed., vol. 23, p. 127).

The October Revolution opened the way to knowledge and culture for the toiling people of all nationalities. The People’s Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR, headed by A. V. Lunacharskii, was one of the first 13 people’s commissariats. A series of decrees signed by Lenin established a new system of public education corresponding to the tasks of socialist construction. Late in 1917 and early in 1918, decrees were adopted on the separation of church and state and of school and church, and on the nationalization of all educational institutions and their transfer to the jurisdiction of the People’s Commissariat of Education.

In October 1918 the All-Russian Central Executive Committee ratified the Statute on the Single Labor School of the RSFSR, which provided for free compulsory education for all children aged eight to 17 in schools of the first and second levels. The Communist Party and the Soviet State posed the task of eliminating illiteracy in the shortest possible time.

In 1920 the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR established under the People’s Commissariat of Education the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy. In 1923 the Down With Illiteracy society was founded. By 1926 the literacy rate among persons in the RSFSR aged nine to 49 had risen to 60.9 percent. In a number of regions, illiteracy was essentially eliminated by the end of 1932. According to the census of 1939, the literacy rate was 89.7 percent: 96 percent among men and 83.9 percent among women. By 1970 the literacy rate had reached 99.7 percent.

The system of public education underwent changes, primarily in the types and organization of schools and in the number of years of instruction. By the 1930–31 school year universal compulsory primary education had been instituted in rural areas, and universal compulsory seven-year education had been established in cities and workers’ settlements. In the 1930–31 school year, 84.7 percent of the children in the RSFSR aged eight to 14 were in schools, as compared to 46.1 percent in the 1927–28 school year. As universal education was attained, the number of schools, pupils, and students increased. In the 1928–29 school year there were 5,998,000 pupils in 79,400 primary schools, and in the 1931–32 school year, 9,347,700 pupils in 95,800 schools. From the 1920’s through the late 1930’s, rabfaki (workers’ schools) had a special role in raising the level of general education.

The Seventeenth Party Congress (1934) posed the task of fully establishing universal compulsory seven-year polytechni-cal education during the second five-year plan. Later, in March 1934, the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR adopted the resolution On Preparing for Seven-year Universal Compulsory Polytechnical Education. It provided for further education for all children who had completed primary school. This was to be effected in cities and workers’ settlements beginning in the 1935–36 school year, and in rural areas in the 1937–38 school year. In 1949 compulsory seven-year education from the age of seven was instituted. The system of internaty (hostels) at schools expanded considerably. In the 1949–50 school year, of 3,106 such internaty with 75,500 places, 90 percent were in rural areas.

In accordance with the resolutions of the Twenty-fourth Congress of the CPSU (1971), a session of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR (August 1974) adopted the resolution On Measures for Completing the Transition to Universal Secondary Education in the RSFSR. Three types of secondary schools were established: general-education schools, specialized schools, and vocational-technical schools. In August 1974, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR adopted the Law on Public Education. In 1974, 92 percent of the graduates of the eighth grade of general-education schools of all types were accepted into secondary schools, which was 18 percent more than in 1970.

Much attention is devoted in the RSFSR to vocational-technical education. In 1920 the first factory, agricultural, and office and commercial training schools were opened. In 1940 the unified system of State Labor Reserves of the USSR was created. Many of the training schools became vocational-technical schools and labor-reserve schools that later developed into city and rural vocational-technical schools. In connection with the transition to universal secondary education, the system of secondary vocational-technical schools has expanded. In 1974, 237,000 students were accepted into these schools.

A system of preschool upbringing was established after the October Revolution. As of early 1974, there were 67,000 permanent kindergartens, nursery-kindergartens, and nurseries with 6,138,000 children. By comparison, in 1917 there were 4,200 children in 800 preschool institutions, and in 1940, 1,266,000 children in 29,900 preschool institutions.

In the 1974–75 school year there were 23,941,000 students in 91,600 general-education schools of all types, and 2,673,000 students in 2,477 specialized secondary schools, of whom 1,187,000 were enrolled in industrial and construction schools and 422,000 in agricultural schools. By comparision, in the 1940–41 school year, 2,188 specialized secondary schools had an enrollment of 594,000 students. On Jan. 1, 1975, there were 1,701,000 students in 3,589 vocational-technical schools of the state vocational education system. In addition, 16.5 million industrial and office workers were pursuing studies leading to new professions and taking advanced training in enterprises, institutions, and organizations.

Pedagogical personnel for preschool and extracurricular institutions, general-education schools, specialized secondary schools, and vocational-technical schools are trained at pedagogical schools and institutes and at universities. In 1974 there were 80 institutes for advanced teacher training for improving the skills of teachers. Tables 16 and 17 give the number of general-education schools, of teachers and students in them, and of specialized secondary and higher educational institutions.

Table 16. General-education schools and teachers in Russia and the RSFSR1
1 At start of school year 2Decrease in the number of general-education day schools is explained by their reorganization and consolidation, especially in rural areas
General-education schools (all types).............77,400116,90091,6002
Teachers ..............167,200711,2001,283,300

In 1974 there were 475 higher educational institutions, whereas in 1914 there were 72 higher educational institutions with an enrollment of 86,000 students. There were 38 universities, of which 32 were opened after the October Revolution, 169 polytechnic institutes and higher educational institutions of industry, construction, and transportation and communications, and 54 agricultural institutes and academies. There were also 45 medical institutes and 125 institutes of pedagogy, culture, art, and physical culture. These institutes had 2,798,000 students, including 1,232,000 in higher educational institutions of industry and construction, and 708,000 and 236,000 in higher educational institutions of education and agriculture, respectively. In the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East, there were more than 140 higher educational institutions in 1974, the majority of which were opened after the October Revolution.

Table 17. Students in general-education schools, specialized secondary schools, and higher educational institutions in Russia and the RSFSR1
1 At start of school year
General-education schools (all types)..........5,684,00020,633,00023,941,000
Specialized secondary schools...........35,400594,0002,673,000
Higher educational institutions.........86,500478,0002,798,000

The RSFSR is a multinational republic, with instruction carried out in 47 languages. The curricula of the national schools provide for the study of the national language and literature under special programs and with special textbooks. The scope of material covered is identical to that in schools with Russian-language instruction. The increase in the number of students in general-education schools, specialized secondary schools, and higher educational institutions of the autonomous republics is given in Table 18.

During the years of Soviet power, a system of extracurricular institutions was established. Early in 1974 there were 2,350 palaces and houses of Pioneers and schoolchildren, 414 stations for young technologists, 228 stations for young naturalists, 90 excursion and tourist stations, and 98 children’s parks in the system of the Ministry of Education.

An important role in public education and the communist education of the toiling people is played by cultural-educational institutions—libraries, museums, and palaces and houses

Table 18. Students in general-education schools (all types), specialized secondary schools, and higher educational institutions of the autonomous republics of the RSFSR1 (thousands)
 General-education schools (all types)Specialized secondary schools2Higher educational institutions2
1At start of school year 2Including correspondence study
Bashkir ASSR..............132.5627.0892.
Buriat ASSR...............13.5100.1190.
Chechen-Ingush ASSR........12.8106.4291.72.915.31.211.3
Chuvash ASSR.............29.9184.3293.36.822.41.714.3
Dagestan ASSR ............13.2214.3467.
Kabarda-Balkar ASSR ........6.775.0150.91.911.20.99.0
Kalmyk ASSR..............4.030.872.
Karelian ASSR .............16.091.4136.51.616.80.89.5
Komi ASSR ...............15.158.7218.02.517.90.610.8
Mari ASSR................25.9108.6154.23.311.71.814.6
Mordovian ASSR............58.0197.4227.
Severnaia Osetiia ASSR .......17.182.4116.
Tatar ASSR ...............117.2541.8702.512.953.212.165.1
Tuva ASSR ...............
Udmurt ASSR..............58.6226.7302.
Yakut ASSR...............4.763.8177.83.710.40.86.3

of culture. In 1974 there were more than 62,000 public libraries with holdings of 848.3 million items, as compared to 9,300 libraries with 6.7 million volumes in 1913. The largest general-purpose libraries are located in the RSFSR, including the Lenin State Library of the USSR in Moscow; the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library in Leningrad, the methodological center of the RSFSR’s public libraries; and the State Public Historical Library of the RSFSR in Moscow. Other important libraries in the RSFSR are the scientific libraries of Moscow and Leningrad universities, of the University of Kazan, and of other higher educational institutions, as well as the Central Polytechnic Library and other central specialized libraries in Moscow.

In 1974 there were 639 museums in the RSFSR, including 87 museums of history and revolutionary history, 304 museums of local lore, 109 memorial museums, and 87 museums of art studies. Among the largest museums are the Central Lenin Museum, the Museum of the Revolution of the USSR, the Tret’iakov Gallery, and the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, and the Russian Museum and the Hermitage in Leningrad. In 1974 there were 76,900 clubs, including 66,000 in rural areas.


Narodnoe obrazovanie v RSFSR. Edited by M. P. Kashin and E. M. Chekharin. Moscow, 1970.
Konstantinov, N. A., E. N. Medynskii, and M. F. Shabaeva. Istoriia pedagogiki, 4th ed. Moscow, 1974.
Amateur arts. Amateur groups originated in the RSFSR immediately after the October Revolution of 1917. Hundreds of theater circles performed at the front during the Civil War of 1918–20. Early in 1919, under the Theatrical Department of the People’s Commissariat of Education, a subdivision of workers’ and peasants’ theaters was established whose function it was to develop amateur dramatic activities. In the mid-1920’s, such amateur performances and groups as the Living Newspaper and the Blue Blouse (in cities) and the Red Shirt (in fural areas) became widespread. These small groups performed revues, concert pieces, literary sketches, and topical satirical cha-stushki (short humorous songs). The performers were often the authors of the works presented.
The Theater of Young Workers movement originated in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. The resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR On Improving the Theater (1930) helped strengthen ties between the professional and amateur theater. Beginning in the late 1930’s, the best plays of Soviet playwrights as well as Russian and foreign classics were performed in amateur theaters.
In 1932 the Central House of Amateur Arts was established in Moscow to direct and assist amateur arts. In 1934 it organized correspondence courses for organizers of and participants in amateur arts. Now called the People’s Correspondence University of the Arts, these courses had an enrollment of more than 17,000 in 1974. In 1936 the Central House of Amateur Arts was reorganized into the N. K. Krupskaia All-Union (later, Central) House of Folk Arts. In the 1940’s, houses of folk arts were established in all the autonomous republics and oblasts of the RSFSR. During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, amateur groups performed at the front, in defense enterprises, and in military hospitals.
Amateur groups performing in clubs include choral, dramatic, dance, circus, and variety groups, song and dance ensembles, folk music and symphony orchestras, concert and brass bands, and vocal and instrumental ensembles. There are also propaganda art brigades and associations of reciters, artists, and cinema and photography enthusiasts. Greatest in popularity are choral and vocal groups. Propaganda brigades have become widespread; in rural areas alone, they present up to 200,000 concerts annually, making extensive use of local topical issues.
In amateur arts, much attention is devoted to maintaining and continuing national folk traditions and to collecting and popularizing national folk works. The people’s amateur theaters became a new, higher level of amateur art activity. Since 1959 the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR has applied this term to the best dramatic groups, those that have gained prestige owing to the high level of their performances. Since 1960 the title of amateur (folk) group has been conferred on the best choruses, ensembles, orchestras, and dance groups.
Amateur arts festivals regularly held in the RSFSR and its autonomous republics aid in the development of amateur arts, and local holidays and festivals promote the development of folklore groups. Amateur arts groups constitute an important part of the RSFSR’s cultural life, particularly in those cities, raion centers, and settlements that have no professional theater. In 1974 amateur clubs of the state system alone gave more than 1 million concerts, attended by 136 million persons. In 1975 there were about 250,000 circles with 2.4 million members in the clubs of the state system.


Zograf, N. G. “Teatral’naia samodeiatel’nost’.” In Ocherki istorii russkogo sovetskogo dramaticheskogo teatra, vol. 2. Moscow, 1960.
Kukaretin, V. I. “Samodeiatel’noe iskusstvo.” Ibid., vol. 3. Moscow, 1961.


Natural and technical sciences.TO THE END OF THE 17TH CENTURY. During the early period of development of ancient Rus’, a body of empirical knowledge was gradually accumulated. Technical skills were developed and passed on from generation to generation, and scientific conceptions based on observation and experience were formed. In this way, the basis of scientific knowledge was established. In Kievan Rus’, architecture, as exemplified by the fortresses and churches, and handicrafts reached a high stage of development. Tools, weapons, jewelry, and a variety of articles of glass and ceramics were manufactured.

Information about natural science can be found in the chronicles. There are numerous references to such astronomical and meteorological phenomena as sunspots, eclipses, comets, and northern lights, as well as references to earthquakes and floods. The Primary Chronicle shows that people in Rus’ in the tenth and 11th centuries had information about Europe and certain parts of Asia. A journey from Constantinople to Jerusalem is described in detail in the Passage by Father Superior Daniil (1106–08). Of the few extant examples of astronomical and mathematical literature, certain articles of the Russkaia Pravda dealing with the calculation of the offspring of various domestic animals and of bees are of particular interest. In 1136 the Novgorod monk Kirik produced his Discourse on the Determination of the Number of All the Years, which was devoted to arithmetic-chronological calculations.

With the introduction of Christianity in the late tenth century, Byzantine and Bulgarian theological works became known in Rus’. These works contained, albeit in distorted form, elements of classical science. The Chronicle of Georgios Amarto-los contained information about the atomic theory of Democri-tus. The Izborniki Sviatoslava (1073) included information on the signs of the zodiac and offered advice on hygiene. Ioann the Exarch’s Six Days of Creation set forth the notions of Aristotle and Plato on the structure of the universe, divided animals into classes, and discussed human anatomy and the climatic zones of the earth. The Source of Knowledge of John of Damascus treated the Aristotelian doctrine of the elements. The Naturalist discussed the diversity of the animal world. With the Mongol-Tatar invasion, however, the development of science, culture, and technology in Rus’ was greatly impeded.

Salt-making, metallurgy, and the production of tar and potash began their development in the second half of the 14th century. The first cannon appeared in Rus’ at the end of the 14th century (1382), and tower clocks made their appearance in the 15th century (Moscow, 1404; Novgorod, 1436; Pskov, 1477). The building of large structures resumed, and such hoisting mechanisms as pulleys and winches came into use. Water-wheels were widely employed as machines. In Moscow, the Cannon Yard (foundry and arsenal) was established in the late 15th century; it was here that A. Chokhov cast the Tsar’s Cannon in 1586. In 1534 the first mint was set up, and in 1563 the State Printing Office was founded. In the 16th and 17th centuries deposits of copper, silver, iron, and other ores were discovered, and regular exploitation was begun. The first manufactories—paper mills—appeared in the late 16th century. The 17th century saw the appearance of the Linen Weaving Factory in Moscow, of ironworks in Kashira and Tula, and of glassworks and gunpowder mills in the environs of Moscow.

By the end of the 15th century, the centralization of the Russian state was completed. New territories were constantly being assimilated, thus stimulating the accumulation of knowledge about the geography of Russia. Enormous expanses along the Arctic Ocean and in Siberia and the Far East were studied as a result of the numerous journeys of explorers and prospectors. Journeys abroad, particularly to the East, were also undertaken.

In the early 16th century, the central administrative prikazy (offices) of the Russian state began the work of organizing and assimilating the new territories. They also concentrated on construction and on the development of military technology. The prikazy employed both Russian specialists and specialists from abroad. In the Razriadnyi Prikaz (War Office), cartographic works on Russia were compiled; these included the “Great Chart” and the first geographic description of the Russian state, The Book of the Great Chart. Geographic materials were also preserved in the Prikaz Bol’shogo Dvortsa (Palace Prikaz) and the Posol’skii Prikaz (Foreign Office), where books from Latin, Swedish, German, Greek, Polish, and other languages were translated. Included here was G. Mercator’s Cosmography. The manual Regulations for Military, Artillery, and Other Affairs was also compiled. The development of medicine was bound up with the Aptekarskii Prikaz (Pharmaceutical Department). Herbs were grown and studied in a special garden, medicines were prepared, medical works and studies of herbs were both translated and written, apothecaries and physicians were trained, and in 1654, the first medical school was established. Scientific and technical knowledge was also accumulated in other departments, for example, the Prikaz Kamennykh Del (Central Administration for Stone Construction), the Pomest-nyi Prikaz (Office of Land Grants), and the Pushkarskii Prikaz (Office of Field Ordnance). The prikazy served as centers for the organization of scientific and technical activity in Russia.

From the 15th through the 17th century, works such as Six Days of Creation and Christian Topography continued to appear in Russian. But owing to certain heretical movements, a secular scientific literature also appeared. In the late 15th century and the early 16th, heretics in Novgorod and Moscow translated a number of European and Arabic works, in particular such works on astronomy as Six Wings, which contained six tables on the movement of the moon, and Cosmography. In the 16th century anthologies dealing with natural science were available for the inquisitive reader; these included the azbukovniki and the work Lucidarus. The first practical handbooks, books outlining the production of inks and paints, appeared at the end of the 15th century; by the 17th century there were books dealing with the practical aspects of military affairs, arithmetic and geometry, astronomy, mining, agriculture, and medicine. The achievements of natural science in the West began penetrating Russia in the mid-17th century. The works that were translated included Vesalius’ On the Structure of the Human Body, Blaeu’s Novus Atlas, in which the system of Copernicus was presented, and Hevelius’ Selenographia.

Despite certain achievements in accumulating and disseminating both theoretical and practical scientific knowledge, scientific and technical education was virtually absent in Russia in the 17th century. There existed only the medical school and a system of craft apprenticeship. Natural science was in essence not taught at the Slavic, Greek, and Latin Academy, and scientific literature existed only as manuscripts.

THE 18TH CENTURY. The economic, military, and political reforms begun at the turn of the 18th century sharply increased the demand for specialists and for scientific and technical knowledge. On the initiative of Peter I, who was assisted by J. Bruce, V. N. Tatishchev, and F. Prokopovich, a system of measures was implemented to promote the development of specialized education in Russia. The special schools organized in Moscow included the Gunners’ School attached to the Cannon Yard (1701), the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences (1701), a school of medicine and surgery (1707), and an engineering school (1712). In St. Petersburg, the Naval Academy (1715), a school of military engineering (1719), and a school of medicine and surgery (1733) were established. In the Urals, metallurgical schools were established beginning in 1721. In 1700 the state mining and prospecting service, headed by the Department of Mining (from 1719, the Berg-Kollegiia), was founded. In 1714, the Pharmaceutical Garden was created in St. Petersburg (from 1823, the Botanical Garden), and the first Russian natural-science museum—the Kunstkamera—was founded.

On instructions from Peter I and with the direct participation of Bruce, publication of scientific and technical literature was begun. In 1703, the first printed textbook, L. F. Magnitskii’s Arithmetic, and Logarithmic Tables appeared. In 1708 the first book set in the new Civil typeface, Geometry of Slavic Surveying: Methods for Compass And Straightedge, was published. The book was translated from German by Bruce and edited by Peter I himself. Numerous manuals, most of them translated, were released on such topics as architecture, fortifications, artillery, shipbuilding, geometry, and astronomy. In 1722 the first Russian textbook on mechanics, The Science of Statics, or Mechanics by G. G. Skorniakov-Pisarev, was published. Libraries were established at the new schools, and in 1714 the first state library was founded (today the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). The manufacture of scientific apparatus and instruments, including optical instruments, began under Peter I with the assistance of Bruce. In the years 1720–27, a chemistry laboratory was organized under the Berg-Kollegiia.

The terrain of the country was studied intensively. In 1699 Admiral K. Kriuis made an instrument survey of the Azov Sea and the Don River. In 1714 and 1715, an expedition under A. Bekovich-Cherkasskii compiled a tentative map, in manuscript form, of the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. This map was used by K. Verden and F. I. Soimonov in compiling the first reliable map of the Caspian Sea, which was published in 1720. In the years 1719–21, I. M. Evreinov and F. F. Luzhin compiled a detailed map of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. From 1720 to 1727, an expedition to Siberia was made under the leadership of D. G. Messerschmidt; from 1725 to 1730, the first Kamchatka expedition of V. J. Bering and A. I. Chirikov was made; and from 1733 to 1743, the second Kamchatka (Great Northern) expedition, involving approximately 2,000 men, was made. Here, Bering and Chirikov led the sea contingent, and J. G. Gmelin and G. F. Miller the land contingent. Participants included S. P. Krasheninnikov and G. W. Steller. The year 1734 saw the first publication of a Russian geographical work, I. K. Kirilov’s Atlas of the All-Russian Empire. V. N. Tatishchev is also the author of important geographical works.

The interests of the developing state required a much higher level of training for specialists and a program of scientific research. To resolve these problems, the Academy of Sciences was established in 1724. It combined the functions of scientific research institutes and institutions of higher learning. The academy played a major role in the development of science in Russia and in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Important studies were undertaken based on atomistic conceptions of matter and the principles of the conservation of matter and momentum. The mathematics of mechanics was intensively developed, techniques used in experimentation were devised, and the earth, together with its flora and fauna, was systematically studied. M. V. Lomonosov, who combined a broad philosophical approach with the solution of concrete practical problems, was himself responsible for an entire epoch in the history of Russian science. His activity encompassed virtually all fields of knowledge, and he exerted great influence on the progress of science and education in the country. Mathematics and mechanics were developed through the works of L. Euler as well as through those of N. Bernoulli, D. Bernoulli, la. German, C. Goldbach, and, later, S. K. Kotel’nikov, S. Ia. Rumovskii, J. A. Euler, and F. I. Shubert. Research in astronomy was conducted by J. N. Delisle, L. Euler, A. D. Krasil’nikov, S. Ia. Rumovskii, A. J. Lexell, and P. B. Inokhodtsev.

Owing to the centralization and clear organization of astronomical and geodetic work, Russia, which at the beginning of the 18th century did not have a single map with a latitude-longitude grid, possessed maps at the middle of the century that were based on more astronomical points than the maps used in other European countries. Physics developed through the work of Lomonosov, G. V. Rikhman, F.-U.-T. Aepinus, and L. Euler. Owing to Lomonosov, chemistry acquired a firm scientific foundation. E. Laksman, V. M. Severgin, la. D. Zakharov, and A. A. Musin-Pushkin made contributions to applied chemistry, and T. E. Lovits conducted original research.

Much geological, geographical, and biological information was gathered on the scientific expeditions undertaken in the years 1768–74. Participants included P. S. Pallas, I.I. Lepekhin, S. G. Gmelin, A. I. Gil’denshtedt, I. I. Georgi, N. Ia. Ozere-tskovskii, and V. F. Zuev. The compilation of geologic maps was begun in the 1780’s. C. F. Wolff, one of the founders of the science of embryology, worked in Russia. Research aided by the microscope was carried out by such scientists as M. M. Terekhovskii, A. M. Shumlianskii, and D. S. Samoilovich. A. T. Bolotov laid the foundation for Russian agricultural science. Certain medical and administrative measures were worked out against infections (Samoilovich). Demographic problems were studied, and proposals were advanced for the reduction of mortality, especially infant mortality, and for the improvement of obstetrics and care of the newborn (Lomonosov, S. G. Zybelin, N. M. Ambodik-Maksimovich).

Technology also developed. A. K. Nartov built a number of duplicating lathes with supports, as well as lathes for boring gun barrels and the trunnions of cannon. He proposed new methods for casting cannon and in 1741 created a rapid-fire gun composed of 44 launchers of 3-pound grenades. I. P. Kulibin contributed a number of inventions in applied mechanics and bridge building. In the years 1763–65, I.I. Polzunov devised an installation powered by heat at the plant in Barnaul. In the period 1783–89, K. D. Frolov built an installation powered by water at the mines in the Altai.

In the second half of the 18th century and particularly in the last third of the century, the training of specialists expanded and the publication of educational literature increased. In 1755, Moscow University was founded; the Mining School in St. Petersburg (now the Leningrad Institute of Mines) followed in 1773. In 1779 a surveying school was founded in Moscow which later became the Land Surveying Institute, and in 1798 the St. Petersburg Medical and Surgical Academy was opened. The first Russian scientific society, the Free Economic Society, which appeared in 1765, promoted a scientific approach toward agronomy and worked for the improvement and creation of agricultural implements.

THE 19 TH CENTURY (TO THE 1860’s). The first half of the 19th century was a transitional period from a science limited primarily to the description and systematization of objects and phenomena to a science that studied processes and discovered laws and interactions. It was a period of metaphysical crisis, when a world view based upon a mechanistic picture of the world was supplanted by conceptions based on principles of the conservation and transformation of energy and on studies of the historical development of life and the earth. In Russia, the metaphysical world view derived from an ideology of feudalism and serfdom, the discrediting of which became the foremost task of progressive Russian thought. There was deep interest in the moral and philosophical implications of scientific knowledge. In the first half of the 19th century, science developed in the context of profound socioeconomic contradictions. While the formation of the capitalist stage of development required an expanded study and use of natural resources and the development of scientific knowledge, the backward economy hindered the expansion of scientific research.

In the first half of the 19th century, universities were established in, for example, Kazan and St. Petersburg. Departments of physics and mathematics were set up in 1804, and in 1834 these were divided into subdepartments of mathematics and mathematical physics and subdepartments of natural sciences. In 1819 master of science and doctor of science degrees were introduced, and the defense of a dissertation became a requirement for holding a university position. The educational institutions organized in St. Petersburg included a school of forestry (1803), an institute for the corps of railroad engineers (1809), an institute of technology (1828), and an artillery academy and an engineering academy (1855). The work of the Chief Pedagogical Institute was resumed (1828). Observatories, chemistry and physics laboratories, and botanical gardens were established at universities and other higher educational institutions.

Despite an acute shortage of finances, scientific research was able to develop. Such scientific societies arose as the Moscow Society of Naturalists (1805), the Mineralogical Society (1817), the Russian Geographical Society (1845), and the Moscow Agricultural Society (1820), which established the school and experimental farm from which the Petrovskoe Agricultural Academy (1865) developed. Scientific-administrative organs were established under the Ministry of War (topographic section), the Ministry of the Navy (hydrographic board), the Ministry of Finance (standard measures and weights section, 1842), and the departments of mining and agriculture (scientific committees).

The main scientific center was St. Petersburg. It was here that the mathematicians M. V. Ostrogradskii and V. Ia. Bunia-kovskii, who developed mathematical analysis, mathematical physics, and other divisions of mathematics and mechanics, did their work. P. L. Chebyshev, who founded a school of thought in mathematics known as the St. Petersburg school, began his activity there. The first director of the Pulkovo Observatory, which was founded in 1839, was V. Ia. Struve, author of classic works on astronomy. It was in St. Petersburg that V. V. Petrov discovered the electric arc, H. F. E. Lenz and B. S. Iakobi did important work in electromagnetism, H. Hess established a basic law of thermochemistry, and A. A. Voskresenskii, N. N. Zinin, and C. J. Fritzsche laid the basis for organic chemistry in Russia. Other scientists active in St. Petersburg included the embryologist and anatomist Kh. Pander; K. M. Baer, a pioneer in comparative embryology; N. I. Pirogov, author of classic works on surgery and anatomy and father of military field surgery; the anatomist P. A. Zagorskii; the surgeon I. F. Bush; and the anatomist and surgeon I. V. Buial’skii.

The scientists working at Moscow University included N. D. Brashman, who founded a school of thought in mechanics known as the Moscow school, the astronomers A. N. Drashu-sov, B. Ia. Shveitser, and F. A. Bredikhin, and the meteorologist and climatologist M. F. Spasskii. Also at Moscow University were the geologist G. E. Shchurovskii, the surgeon, anatomist, and physiologist E. O. Mukhin, the doctor of internal medicine M. Ia. Mudrov, the doctor of internal medicine and materialist philosopher I. E. Diad’kovskii, the surgeon F. I. Inozemtsev, and the physiologists A. M. Filomafitskii, V. A. Basov, and I. T. Glebov. In the 1840’s and 1850’s, when political reaction was intensifying and the idea of evolution was regarded as subversive not only to religion but to the state as well, a comprehensive doctrine of the development of the world was worked out and widely popularized by K. F. Rul’e. Rul’e attracted a group of zoologists in the 1850’s who were the first in pre-Darwinian biology to form an evolutionary school of thought (N. A. Se-vertsov, A. P. Bogdanov, la. A. Borzenkov, S. A. Usov).

The leading scientists at the University of Kazan included N. I. Lobachevskii, founder of non-Euclidean geometry; the astronomers J. J. von Littrow, I. M. Simonov, and M. A. Koval’-skii; N. N. Zinin, founder of a school of thought in chemistry known as the Kazan school and author of seminal works on organized synthesis; K. K. Klaus, who conducted research on platinum metals and in 1844 discovered the element ruthenium; and the zoologist E. A. Eversmann. Struve began his activity at the University of Dorpat, where he directed the observatory from 1818 to 1838.

In the first half of the 19th century there were approximately 40 circumnavigations of the globe, in which astronomers, physicists, and biologists took part. One of the stimuli for organizing these expeditions was the necessity of maintaining contact with the Russian settlements established at the end of the 18th century in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. Overland travel through Siberia was fraught with difficulties. The discovery of Antarctica (1820) and hundreds of islands and the collection of valuable oceanographic, geophysical, biological, and ethnographic materials were the result of the voyages of I. F. Kru-zenshtern and Iu. F. Lisianskii (1803–06), V. M. Golovnin (1807–09, 1817–19), O. E. Kotsebu (1815–18, 1823–26), F. F. Bellinghausen and M. P. Lazarev (1819–21), M. N. Vasil’ev and G. S. Shishmarev (1819–22), and F. P. Litke (1826–29). Exploration continued in the arctic, Alaska, the Far East (G. I. Nevel’skoi, 1848–55), Siberia (A. F. Middendorf, 1842–45), the Altai (P. A. Chikhachev, 1842), the Aral Sea (A. I. Butakov, 1848–49), and the Caspian Sea (K. M. Baer, 1853–56).

In the years 1801–04, the “Hundred-Leaf Map” of Russia was published, on a scale of 20 versts (1 verst = 1.07 km) to the inch. In 1839 a 10-verst map of western Russia was compiled. During the period 1816–55, Russian and Swedish degree measurements were taken along the meridian with a longitude of approximately 25°20’ from the mouth of the Danube to the shores of the Arctic Ocean (Struve, K. I. Tenner). Geological explorations were undertaken to such regions as the Donets Ridge (E. P. Kovalevskii, 1829), the Moscow Area Coal Basin (G. P. Gel’mersen, G. D. Romanovskii, 1840’s and 1850’s), the Caucasus (W. H. Abich, 1847–76), the Urals and Altai (G. E. Shchurovskii, 1838, 1844), Transbaikalia, and Siberia. Geologic maps of European Russia were compiled (N. I. Koksharov, 1840; G. P. Gel’mersen, 1841). The Russian government sponsored the expeditions of the German scientist A. von Humboldt (1829, the Urals, Altai, Middle Asia) and the British geologist R. Murchison (1840, European Russia; 1841, the Urals). Works were published on such subjects as mineralogy (V. M. Severgin, A. M. Teriaev, D. I. Sokolov) and biostratigraphy and paleontology (Kh. Pander, P. M. Iazykov, E. I. Eikhval’d).

There were developments in electrical engineering (P. L. Shilling, B. S. Iakobi), metallurgy (P. G. Sobolevskii, I. I. Liu-barskii, P. P. Amosov, P. R. Bagration, I. M. Obukhov, V. S. Piatov), rocketry (A. D. Zasiadko, K. I. Konstantinov), bridge building (S. V. Kerbedz), and railroad design and construction (N. O. Kraft, P. P. Mel’nikov). In the years 1806–09, P. K. Fro-lov built a horse-drawn railroad, and in 1833 E. A. Cherepanov and M. E. Cherepanov built the first steam locomotive in Russia. In 1812 patents protecting the rights of inventors were introduced in Russia.

FROM 1861 TO 1917. The rapid growth of capitalism after the abolition of serfdom in 1861 resulted, particularly in the last third of the 19th century, in the vigorous development of productive forces. Conditions were right for the further growth of the natural sciences and technology. Russian scientists contributed enormously to the resolution of a number of basic questions in natural science in the second half of the 19th century. In 1861, A. M. Butlerov proposed a theory of chemical structure that served as the theoretical basis of chemical synthesis. In 1863,1. M. Sechenov’s work Brain Reflexes opened a new era in the study of the physiology of the brain, that is, a materialist conception of higher nervous activity. In the 1860’s, A. O. Kovalevskii created evolutionary embryology, and V. O. Kovalevskii evolutionary paleontology. In 1869, D. I. Mendeleev discovered the periodic law of chemical elements, which formed the basis of atomic physics and chemistry in the 20th century. K. A. Timiriazev, who made a major contribution to the study of photosynthesis and presented a brilliant defense of Darwinism, began his scientific activity in the 1860’s. The year 1883 saw the publication of V. V. Dokuchaev’s classic work Russian Chernozem, which laid the foundation for genetic soil science. Many of the scientific schools of thought were formed that were to play a significant role in the dissemination and further development of scientific ideas, particularly in chemistry, biology, and mathematics.

In Kazan a student of Butlerov, A. M. Zaitsev, worked out methods for synthesizing saturated and unsaturated alcohols. Such students of Zaitsev as E. E. Vagner and A. E. Arbuzov began their research, and the most prominent follower of Butlerov, V. V. Markovnikov, completed his education. In 1873, Markovnikov transferred to Moscow University and established a scientific school that carried on the development of Butlerov’s theory of chemical structure and made great contributions to the study of the composition of Caucasian petroleum. Markovnikov’s students M. I. Konovalov, N. Ia. Dem’ia-nov, and N. M. Kizhner discovered reactions that made it possible to obtain many new organic compounds and that served as the basis for modern fine organic synthesis. A new stage in the chemistry of acetylene hydrocarbons was marked by the research of Butlerov’s student A. E. Favorskii, who established a school of organic chemistry in St. Petersburg. Mendeleev’s teaching on constant- and variable-composition compounds (similar to alloys) was developed by N. S. Kurna-kov and by the school of physicochemical analysis that Kurna-kov founded. In St. Petersburg, L. A. Chugaev founded an important school of thought in the chemistry of complex compounds. Mendeleev’s research on solutions was continued by, among others, D. P. Konovalov and M. S. Vrevskii. The works of N. N. Beketov and his co-workers marked an important stage in the history of thermochemistry and of physical chemistry in general. Studies on chemical kinetics and catalysis were carried out in St. Petersburg by N. A. Menshutkin and in Moscow by N. A. Shilov and Konovalov. Russian scientists were excited by the prospect of developing the country’s productive forces. Mendeleev ceaselessly advocated the exploitation of Russia’s natural resources. Such scientists as G. G. Gus-tavson and A. N. Engel’gardt studied various aspects of mineral fertilizers and the liming of soil. D. N. Prianishnikov began his research in the late 1880’s.

The development of biology was pronounced. Prominent Russian biologists not only defended evolutionary theory but also made substantial contributions to the reordering of a number of divisions in biology on the basis of Darwinism. E. Metchnikoff applied evolutionary ideas to pathology. A school of thought in comparative anatomy known as the Moscow school, which was headed by M. A. Menzbir and later by A. N. Severtsov, studied the paths and determining factors in evolutionary development. The morphological research of Severtsov and his followers formed the basis of scientific conceptions of the evolutionary paths of vertebrates. Severtsov formulated a logical doctrine on the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny.

The double fertilization of angiosperms by S. G. Navashin in 1898 received world recognition. A. N. Beketov created a school of botanico-geographers. Russian scientists made major contributions to the development of agricultural science. P. A. Kostychev laid the foundation for modern soil science, as did I. V. Michurin for the scientific selection of agricultural crops. The works of G. F. Morozov greatly influenced the development of biogeocenology and forestry. Significant work in animal husbandry was done by N. P. Chirvinskii, P. N. Kuleshov, M. I. Pridorogin, M. F. Ivanov, E. A. Bogdanov, and I. I. Ivanov.

Russian morphology and physiology enriched world science through classic studies on anatomy, histology, and the physiology of the nervous system and studies on the structure and regulating mechanisms of the physiological processes involved in higher nervous activity. A synthesis of histological and physiological studies of the nervous system was characteristic (Kazan school—V. M. Bekhterev, F. V. Ovsiannikov). A. I. Babukhin and Ovsiannikov contributed significantly to the development of experimental and evolutionary currents in histology, as did P. F. Lesgaft to the development of the functional approach in anatomy. Bekhterev formulated a doctrine on the conductive paths of the spinal column and brain. V. A. Bets studied the cy-toarchitecture of the brain cortex, and A. S. Dogel’ did pioneering work in the morphology of interoceptors. Sechenov discovered the central inhibitory state (1862), demonstrated the reflex nature of all conscious and unconscious acts of life (1863), and laid the foundation of comparative and evolutionary physiology, the physiology of aging, and occupational physiology. His numerous students and followers, including B. F. Verigo, I. R. Tarkhanov, V. Iu. Chagovets, I. F. Tsion, and M. N. Shaterni-kov, obtained important experimental results and discovered basic laws in many areas of physiology. N. E. Vvedenskii’s research involved physiological rhythms, the relationship between excitation and inhibition, and parabiosis. I. P. Pavlov carried out classic studies on the physiology of the circulatory system (1874–88) and digestive system (Nobel Prize, 1904). His research on higher nervous activity stands as one of the most significant scientific achievements of the late 19th century and the early 20th, in many ways determining the direction of research in such fields as physiology, pathology, clinical medicine, and psychology.

Russian biochemistry sprang from research in physiology. A. Ia. Danilevskii discovered the synthesizing property and structural similarities of enzymes. In 1880, N. I. Lunin discovered vitamins. V. I. Palladin revealed the mechanism of biological oxidation. The research of the founder of general microbiology in Russia, S. N. Vinogradskii, who discovered che-moautotrophic and nitrogen-fixing microorganisms, achieved world recognition, as did that of V. L. Omelianskii on fermentation, and Prianishnikov on nitrogen metabolism in plants. A. N. Bakh’s peroxide theory of oxidation and M. S. Tsvet’s method of adsorptive chromatography were also recognized by the world’s scientific community.

In the area of general pathology, Metchnikoff’s discovery of the phenomenon of phagocytosis and his elaboration of the phagocytic theory of immunity (Nobel Prize, 1908) were of major importance. Metchnikoff’s works on comparative and evolutionary pathology have served as the basis for modern general and experimental pathology. V. V. Pashutin created an original (pathophysiologic) school of Russian pathologists. E. S. London was one of the first to study the biological effect of radiation (1903, 1911). In 1912, F. A. Andreev obtained successful results in resuscitating animals. A. I. Polunin, M. M. Rudnev (experimental approach), and M. N. Nikiforov (anatomic-clinical approach) contributed to the development of pathological anatomy as an independent branch of science. The development of the experimental and clinical approaches in pharmacology was closely linked with the research of S. P. Botkin’s clinical laboratory and particularly with the work of N. P. Kravkov and the scientists of his school.

Russian clinical medicine occupied a leading position in Europe. Botkin, G. A. Zakhar’in, A. A. Ostroumov, and their students founded original Russian schools in various medical specialties. N. V. Sklifosovskii, A. A. Bobrov, and P. I. D’iakonov continued along the line of Pirogov in surgery. The development of pediatrics as an independent discipline is connected with S. F. Khotovitskii, N. A. Tol’skii, N. F. Filatov, and N. P. Gundobin. A. Ia. Kozhevnikov founded the first subdepart-ment of neurological diseases in the world (1869) and was the nucleus of a major school of Russian neuropathologists (V. K. Rot, G. I. Rossolimo) and psychiatrists. In 1857, I. M. Balinskii began teaching a separate course in psychiatry. The school of S. S. Korsakov and V. P. Serbskii gave Russian psychiatry a leading position in Europe. In the early 1900’s, Bekhterev’s psychoneurological school came into being. In Russian dermatology and venereology, schools were created by Botkin’s student A. G. Polotebnov, who regarded diseases of the skin as a manifestation of an illness affecting the entire organism, and by A. I. Pospelov, who proposed a neurogenic theory of the origin of certain skin diseases. V. N. Tarnovskii made important contributions in the control of venereal diseases. Problems in operative gynecology were worked out by A. Ia. Krassovskii and Zakhar’in’s student V. F. Snegirev, who founded a school of Moscow gynecologists. Russian schools of ophthalmologists were established by E. V. Adamiuk and A. A. Kriukov, and a school of otolaryngologists by Botkin’s student N. P. Simanovskii.

In mathematics, the major role was played by the St. Petersburg school of Chebyshev, from which smaller schools later developed in Kharkov, Warsaw, and Kazan. The main works of Chebyshev and his school (A. N. Korkin, E. I. Zolotarev, A. A. Markov, A. M. Liapunov, G. F. Voronoi, N. Ia. Sonin, A. N. Krylov, V. A. Steklov) are related to probability theory, number theory, mathematical analysis, and mathematical physics. In connection with his research on the theory of linkages, Chebyshev formulated a theory of best approximations of functions. In probability theory, Markov laid the foundations of the theory of random (Markov) processes. Independently of H. Poincaré, Liapunov developed a theory of the stability of systems and a qualitative theory of differential equations. Lia-punov’s student Steklov did important work in mathematical physics, as did Korkin’s student Krylov in applied mathematics, theoretical mechanics, and theories pertaining to the design and construction of ships. Non-Euclidean geometry was developed at Kazan. S. V. Kovalevskaia obtained significant results in the analytical theory of differential equations and in the application of this theory to gyroscope theory. At the beginning of the 20th century, D. F. Egorov and N. N. Luzin founded the Moscow school of the theory of functions of a real variable.

In the area of applied mathematics and mechanics, the greatest contributions were made by N. E. Zhukovskii and S. A. Chaplygin in hydrodynamics and aerodynamics and I. V. Meshcherskii in the mechanics of bodies of variable mass. N. V. Maievskii’s research on ballistics was of great importance and initiated a new stage in the development of this field. N. P. Pe-trov produced a classic work on the hydrodynamic theory of lubrication. I. A. Vyshnegradskii was one of the originators of the theory of automatic control. K. E. Tsiolkovskii’s works formed the basis for the theory of interplanetary navigation and space vehicles.

The works of the comparatively few Russian physicists active in the last third of the 19th century followed the new direction in world science brought about by the theory of the electromagnetic field. One of the first physicists in the world to set great store by the theory of the field was A. G. Stoletov, who set up a physics laboratory at Moscow University. Stoletov was the author of works on magnetism, the photoelectric effect, and electrical discharge in gases. P. N. Lebedev carried out classic work on the pressure of light on solids and gases, work that achieved world recognition, and established a school of physicists at Moscow University. In 1874, N. A. Umov discovered the law of the propagation of energy in elastic bodies, and in 1887, V. A. Mikhel’son applied the methods of statistical mechanics to the theory of radiation. The great achievements of Russian crystallography were due to the works of E. S. Fedorov and G. V. Vul’f.

In astronomy, in addition to traditional astrometry, astrophysics began developing in the 1870’s. F. A. Bredikhin, author of works on the theory of cometary orbits and the spectra of comets and nebulae, and his student A. A. Belopol’skii worked at Pulkovo. In Moscow, V. K. Tserasskii did important research on astrophotometry.

In the earth sciences, significant studies of the geological history of European Russia were carried out by A. P. Karpinskii. Evolutionary paleontology and biostratigraphy were developed by, among others, A. P. Pavlov and N.I. Andrusov. In petrology, the work of F. Iu. Levinson-Lessing was of particular importance. In the 1890’s, owing to the activity of V. I. Vernadskii, Moscow University became a major center of mineralogy. The wide-ranging studies of D. N. Anuchin also began at this time.

Russian oceanography (S. O. Makarov, Iu. M. Shokal’skii, N. M. Knipovich) and climatology (A. I. Voeikov) reached a high stage of development. The Climatological Atlas of the Russian Empire was published in 1900. The research of B. B. Goli-tsyn, one of the founders of seismology, dates to the beginning of the 20th century. In the second half of the 19th century, the terrain of Russia and adjacent countries was studied. During this period the Russian Geographic Society was instrumental in organizing expeditions. Expeditions to Central Asia began with that of P. P. Semenov-Tian-Shanskii in 1856 and 1857; this expedition was followed by those of N. M. Przheval’skii and V. N. Roborovskii, G. N. Potanin, M. V. Pevtsov, G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, and P. K. Kozlov. The geological explorations of Siberia by P. A. Kropotkin, I. D. Cherskii, and V. A. Obruchev are well known. V. L. Komarov studied the flora of Middle Asia, the Far East (Kamchatka), Korea, Manchuria, and China. Exploration of the arctic continued (S. O. Makarov, E. V. Toll’, G. la. Sedov, G. V. Brusilov, B. A. Vil’kitskh). A large contribution to science was made by the voyages of N. N. Mi-klukho-Maklai to New Guinea and other islands of the Pacific Ocean.

The Geological Committee, created in 1882, organized the exploration of various parts of the country and posed for itself the task of compiling a comprehensive geologic map of Russia on a 10-verst scale. By 1917, however, only 10 percent of the country had been mapped. The areas that were carefully studied included the Urals (Karpinskii and F. N. Chernyshev), the Donets Coal Basin (L. I. Lutugin), and Middle Asia (I. V. Mushketov). The first systematic paleontological excavations were begun in Russia in the 1890’s (V. P. Amalitskii).

Developments were made in technology. K. P. Polenov introduced and developed the Russian Bessemer process (1875–76). The classic works of D. K. Chernov, founder of metallography and the theory of the heat treatment of steel, were published. A. S. Popov’s invention of the radio (1895) was one of technology’s greatest achievements. Russian scientists were among the leaders in electrical engineering. A. N. Lodygin invented the incandescent lamp (1872), and P. N. Iablochkov, the first usable arc lamp (1876); N. N. Benardos and N. G. Slavianov worked out the basic methods of arc welding (1882–88). The research of M. O. Dolivo-Dobrovol’skii greatly influenced the development of three-phase current technology. Significant contributions to the development of railroad transportation were made by A. P. Borodin and N. N. Mitinskii. Developments in shipbuilding and navigation were in large part due to the mechanical and heat engineer V. I. Kalashnikov. A. N. Krylov, S. O. Makarov, I. G. Bubnov, and N. P. Naletov specialized in naval shipbuilding, and M. S. Gersevanov in the construction of harbor installations. Developments were made in the construction of railroads, bridges, and tunnels (D. I. Zhuravskii, N. A. Beleli-ubskii, L. F. Nikolai, F. S. Iasinskii). I. A. Time, K. A. Zvorykin, and V. L. Kirpichev worked in many areas of mechanical engineering and machine building, while N. P. Petrov and V. G. Shukhov specialized in civil engineering and construction.

A number of engineering problems in mining were worked out by M. M. Protod’iakonov, and new methods for the design of mines were developed by B. I. Bokii. The problems incurred in drilling deep holes were worked out by S. G. Voislav and I. N. Glushkov. In military engineering, important work on the theory and design of weapons with spirally grooved barrels was done by N. V. Maievskii, V. S. Baranovskii, N. A. Zabudskii, and A. V. Gadolin. New types of small arms, mines, torpedoes, and artillery equipment were developed by S. I. Mosin, M. M. Boreskov, V. N. Mikhalovskii, and A. P. Davydov. Aviation had its beginning in the 1880’s. In 1881, A. F. Mozhaiskii obtained a patent for a “flying device” powered by a steam engine. A number of original aircraft designs were created during the period 1909–14 by la. M. Gakkel’, D. P. Grigorovich, I.I. Sikor-skii (I. Sikorsky).

In the 18th century and to some extent in the first half of the 19th, the Academy of Sciences held the leading position among scientific institutions, but by the 1860’s universities had acquired great importance. Their number, however, was small; in 1917, there were just seven in what is now the RSFSR. The congresses convened by physicians and naturalists, 13 in all between 1867 and 1913, did much to promote scientific work and to increase the number of scientific societies, which for the most part were appearing at universities. Universal societies of naturalists arose in St. Petersburg (1868), Kazan (1869), and Tomsk (1889). The Society of Amateur Naturalists, with divisions for anthropology and ethnography, was founded in Moscow (1863). Such specialized scientific societies came into being as the Russian Chemistry Society (1868, St. Petersburg), Russian Physics Society (1872, St. Petersburg; in 1878 the two combined to form the Russian Physical Chemistry Society), Russian Technical Society (1866, St. Petersburg), Moscow Mathematical Society (1867), Moscow-St. Petersburg Medical Society (1883), Nizhny Novgorod Society for Amateurs of Physics and Astronomy (1888), and the Kazan Physics and Mathematics Society (1890). The growth of specialized scientific institutions proceeded slowly. In the 1870’s the first marine biological stations, the Sevastopol’ (1871) and the Solovetskaia (1881), were set up. In 1915, on the initiative of a group of academicians headed by Vernadskii, the Commission for the Study of the Natural Productive Forces of Russia was formed at the Academy of Sciences. Russia’s scientific institutions were hampered by a lack of coordination in their scholarly efforts and by a shortage of equipment. Only a few of them even approximated what could be called scientific research institutes. The Academy of Sciences included five laboratories, five museums, 14 committees and commissions, and several observatories. There were 109 scientists and 180 assistants employed in the various subdivisions of the academy.

Prior to the Great October Socialist Revolution, there were 231 scientific institutions in what is now the RSFSR; for the most part these were scientific societies, laboratories, and experimental stations. In the territory east of the Urals, there were only 20 institutions. The number of scientific workers in Russia was approximately 12,000.

Before the October Revolution, Russian science attained a high level owing to the efforts of outstanding scientists working in a broad spectrum of fields. However, many tasks could not be resolved under the conditions of tsarist Russia.

AFTER THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION OF 1917. The Great October Socialist Revolution opened a new era in the history of Russian science. Lenin predicted that “Socialism alone will liberate science from its bourgeois fetters, from its enslavement to capital, from its slavery to the interests of dirty capitalist greed” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch, 5th ed., vol. 36, p. 381). The Communist Party and the Soviet government viewed science as an important tool in the building of socialism. It became an active force in the economic, social, and cultural renaissance of the peoples of Russia. The formation of a nationwide system of scientific research institutions was considered by the party and government to be vital for the continued development of science. As a result of the October Revolution, Russian science changed not only quantitatively but qualitatively as well. The social orientation of science was now fundamentally different, and the range of problems to be addressed by science was increased. From the first days of the establishment of the RSFSR, science was placed in the service of socialist construction. The tasks of research work were clearly defined in Lenin’s The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government and “Draft Plan of Scientific and Technical Work.” In the resolution of the Eighth Party Congress of the RCP(B) it was stated that “The RCP … strives for … the creation of the most favorable conditions for scientific work in connection with raising the productive forces of the country” (KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh, 8th ed., vol. 2, 1970, p. 53).

The scientists of the RSFSR participated in the creation of the plan of the GOELRO (State Commission for the Electrification of Russia) and in the work of developing the productive resources of the country. They were also active in elaborating and implementing state plans for industrialization, the development of the national economy, and the supplying of mineral resources to industry. Other work included the development of agriculture, the carrying out of collectivization, and the realization of the cultural revolution. A broad program of basic research and research on the practical applications of science was instrumental in converting Russia from a backward country to an advanced one. It helped create the basis for victory in the Great Patriotic War (1941–45) and paved the way for rapid scientific and technological progress in the postwar decades.

The scientists of the RSFSR have made important contributions to the development of many branches of science and technology. With their participation atomic weapons were created, the world’s first atomic electric power plant and nonmilitary nuclear-powered vessel were built, and the first artificial earth satellite was launched. Other achievements include the first manned flight in earth orbit, the first space walk, the docking of manned spacecraft, and soft landings of space probes on the moon, Venus, and Mars. Studies were made of the arctic and and antarctic and of the world ocean.

In the first years of Soviet power, Lenin himself participated in resolving a number of problems related to the establishment of new research institutions and the improvement of the status and working conditions of scientific cadres. For the first time in Russia’s history, all scientific institutions were joined in an integrated, centralized system. A scientific department was set up at the People’s Commissariat for Education in the spring of 1918; it was charged with consolidating scientific resources and organizing the research to be carried out in the Academy of Sciences, higher educational institutions, and scientific societies. To provide scientific services to the national economy, a scientific and technical department (director, N. P. Gorbunov) was set up in 1918 as part of the Supreme Council on the National Economy. A scientific commission composed of prominent scientists operated under the department’s auspices. The scientific and technical department was responsible for coordinating all work done in the country in the applied sciences.

Preserving the vital, historically established forms of organization of scientific activity and relying on the best traditions of Russian science, the Soviet government set about creating new scientific institutions. In the years immediately following the October Revolution, there were already institutes attached to the People’s Commissariat for Education concerned with such topics as physicochemical analysis, platinum, optics, ceramics, and roentgenology and radiology. At the same time, institutes were founded under the auspices of the scientific and technical department of the Supreme Council on the National Economy dealing with such fields as aerodynamics and hydrodynamics (N. E. Zhukovskii Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute), applied chemistry (State Institute of Applied Chemistry), chemistry (L. Ia. Karpov Physical Chemistry Institute), minerals (All-Union Scientific Research and Planning Institute for the Mechanical Processing of Minerals), automotive science (Central Scientific Research Automotive Institute), and electrical engineering (State Institute of Experimental Electrical Engineering). Institutes also grew out of various other departments. The State Institute of Public Health was formed under the People’s Commissariat of Public Health (1923, combining eight independent scientific research institutes); the Nizhny Novgorod Radio laboratory was formed under the People’s Commissariat of Post and Telegraph; and the Institute of Experimental Agronomy was formed under the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture. A number of scientific research institutes and laboratories were set up at universities and other higher educational institutions. New scientific research institutions, carrying out both basic research and research on the practical applications of science, formed the nucleus of a system of branch scientific institutions and created a scientific base for the national economy. New universities were opened in Voronezh, Gorky, and Irkutsk in 1918 and in Sverdlovsk in 1920.

The experience that the RSFSR had gained by the early 1920’s in the organization of scientific research was utilized by other Union republics, and with the formation of the USSR it was disseminated on an all-Union scale.

After 1922 a substantial number of the scientific institutions of the RSFSR became part of an all-Union network. In the 1930’s, the research institutes in the scientific and technical department of the Supreme Council on the National Economy were attached to industries, which in turn were under the jurisdiction of people’s commissariats of the USSR. In 1925 the Russian Academy of Sciences became the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. This body played a large role in the development of scientific research in the autonomous republics and other regions of the RSFSR as well as in the other Union republics. Prominent Russian scientists who contributed to the development of science in the former borderlands of Russia included V. L. Komarov (Far East), A. E. Fersman (Kola Peninsula), K. I. Skriabin (Kirghizia), E. N. Pavlovskii (Tadzhikistan), and B. A. Keller (Turkmenistan). The creation of branches and research bases of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR began in the 1930’s; the Kola (1930), Far East (1932), and Urals (1932) branches were formed. During the Great Patriotic War, the Western Siberian branch was organized (1943); after the war, branches were established in Kazan (1945), Karelia (1945), Komi ASSR (1949), Dagestan (1950), and Bashkiria (1951). The institutions of the Academy of Sciences in outlying areas became leading scientific organizations and coordinated research on a variety of problems; they passed on to the newly created scientific institutes the best traditions of Russian science. In 1957 the Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR was organized; it acted as the central body for the branches established in Yakutia (1947), Eastern Siberia (1949), and Buriatia (1966). Universities were founded in Saransk, Nal’-chik, Ufa, Makhachkala, and other capitals of the autonomous republics.

In 1969 the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted the resolution On the Development of Scientific Institutions in the Different Economic Regions of the RSFSR. The Far East Scientific Center of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Urals Scientific Center of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and the Northern Caucasus Scientific Center of Higher Schools were created. Specialized all-Union academies operating within the RSFSR include the V. I. Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences with its Siberian division (1969) and division for the Non-chernozem Zone (1975) and the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR with its Siberian branch (1971).

In the early 1970’s, scientific industrial associations were created in Moscow, Leningrad, Voronezh, and other cities. Much scientific work is conducted by higher educational institutions and affiliated research institutes. Examples are the institutes of nuclear physics and mechanics and the P. K. Shternberg Institute of Astronomy at Moscow State University; the Gorky Ra-diophysical Institute; the Institute of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Rostov; the Siberian Scientific Research Institute of Physics and Technology at the University of Tomsk; and special-problem laboratories at the Leningrad Institute of Technology. Central and regional councils in the various branches of science and technology are part of the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the RSFSR, as is the Central Board for Scientific Research, which coordinates research in higher educational institutions.


Istoriia estestvoznaniia v Rossii, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1957–62.
Razvitie sovetskoi nauki za 50 let: Ukazatel’ iubileinoi literatury. Moscow, 1972.
Social sciences.PHILOSOPHY In ancient Rus’, as in other feudal societies, “church dogma was the starting point and foundation of all thinking” (F. Engels, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch, 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 495). The content of philosophy was made to accord with the doctrine of the Eastern Christian Church, and there was an extensive literature consisting of Eastern patristic works in translation. Philosophic ideas were expressed by a number of secular and religious writers in ancient Rus’, including Ilarion, Kirill of Turov, Kliment Smolia-tich, Vladimir Monomakh, Nikifor, and Nestor. An important stimulus to the development of original philosophic thought was provided by the socioreligious movements of the 11th through 16th centuries, which included various heretical movements and movements opposing and supporting church land-ownership (the nestiazhateli and Josephites, respectively).
In the 16th century, Maksim Grek, Zenobius of Otnia, and Ermolai-Erazm wrote not simply as theologians but as philosophers in the proper sense of the word. In 1687 the Slavic, Greek, and Latin Academy was created in Moscow, and here Joanni-kius and Sophronius Likhudes, two émigrés from Greece, taught the first courses in natural philosophy and logic in the spirit of Aristotelianism. Toward the end of the 17th century, Russian philosophic thought noticeably began freeing itself from church influences, as can be seen from the writings of S. Polotskii, A. Belobotskii, and Iu. Krizhanich.
The reforms of Peter I considerably altered the intellectual life of Russian society, providing a powerful impetus to the development of science, secular culture, and philosophy. In 1713 the first systematic course of Aristotelian cosmology in the Russian language, the Mirror of Natural Observation, was published. Stefan Iavorskii and Feofilakt Lopatinskii wrote in the spirit of scholastic Aristotelianism. In the mid-18th century, F. Prokopovich and like-minded colleagues in the Slavic, Greek, and Latin Academy weakened the hold of traditional scholasticism in Russia and paved the way for the penetration into Russia of the philosophic ideas of B. Spinoza, R. Descartes, F. Bacon, G. W. von Leibniz, and C. Wolff. Prominent roles in the criticism of scholastic conceptions and the consolidation of secular philosophic thought in the first half of the 18th century were played by A. D. Kantemir, V. N. Tatishchev, and V. K. Trediakovskii. Although theists, they strove to bring faith and reason into accord and to delimit philosophy and theology without placing the two in opposition.
The father of experimental natural science and the materialist philosophic tradition in Russia was M. V. Lomonosov. Interpreting the idea of the creator in the spirit of deism, he held that the basic task of philosophy was to explain phenomena of the natural world, and he worked out an original “method of philosophizing that bases itself on atoms,” or “a system of corpuscular philosophy.”
In the second half of the 18th century, higher educational institutions used textbooks by F. Baumeister, a popularizer of Leibnizian-Wolffian philosophy. In 1755, Moscow University became the main center of philosophy. Philosophy was taught at the university by N. N. Popovskii, a student of Lomonosov’s; D. S. Anichkov, who showed an interest in the ideas of the Enlightenment and materialism; I. M. Shaden; I. G. Shvarts; and A. M. Briantsev, who displayed an interest in Kantian philosophy. The second half of the 18th century saw increased interest in such problems as man’s nature, purpose, happiness, future, mortality, and immortality and the philosophy of history. M. M. Shcherbatov’s conception of the speculative philosophy of history and ethics was the first theoretically expressed conservative reaction to the Europeanization of Russia resulting from the Petrine reforms. Masonry, which elaborated the ideas of self-knowledge and religious and moral improvement through the use of unorthodox Christian mysticism, was a religious and philosophic current that existed outside the church. Ideas of humanist and Enlightenment philosophy, generally based on practical “moral” philosophy, emerged and gathered strength; leading exponents included Ia. P. Kozel’skii, S. E. Desnitskii, I. A. Tret’iakov, and A. Ia. Polenov. Kozel’skii provided a philosophic conception close to the classical Enlightenment of the 18th century. The ideas of the outstanding moralist N. I. Novikov also were related to the humanist philosophy of the second half of the 18th century.
The philosophy of A. N. Radishchev, the founder of revolutionary traditions in Russia, was a lofty achievement of Russian philosophic thought in the second half of the 18th century. His philosophy, which was mainly based on the ideas of the Enlightenment and mostly materialist in orientation, basically took up the question “What is the true man?” In his study On Man, His Mortality and Immortality, Radishchev included problems of “general natural science” and a philosophic section treating the essence of the world and the relations between material (“substantial”) and ideal principles in the world.
In the first quarter of the 19th century, the founding of new universities and the introduction of philosophy, the natural sciences, and natural law into the Gymnasium curriculum led to the creation of a significant philosophic literature. Professors instrumental in introducing philosophy on the Gymnasium level included P. D. Lodii, A. S. Lubkin, A. I. Galich, I.I. Davydov, and L. K. Iakob. I. E. Sreznevskii, I. Iur’evich, and some other philosophers were still guided by 18th-century metaphysics in the spirit of Leibniz and Wolff. The works of other philosophers show the influence of the most recent Western European currents, including the critical philosophy of I. Kant and particularly the natural philosophy of F. W. von Schelling; these philosophers included D. M. Vellanskii and, in the 1820’s, M. G. Pavlov and M. A. Maksimovich. Most philosophers, however, did not belong to any one school but rather sought to assimilate the results obtained by the most varied schools of European thought. Ideas directed against metaphysics and natural philosophy attained great importance, as did the orientation toward experimental science.
Outside the universities, philosophy began centering more and more on the philosophy of history, especially Russian history. To the problem of old, pre-Petrine Rus’—a problem that had arisen as early as the 18th century—and of new Russia were now added problems of a philosophic and historical nature: “Russia and the West”; the distinctive, national, popular character of Russian culture, philosophy, literature, and art; and the relation between what was national and what was common to all of humanity. The spread of mysticism of the Masonic stripe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries laid the groundwork for the introduction of philosophic romanticism. In the 1820’s the main exponents of philosophic romanticism came to be the critics of the French Enlightenment and the admirers of German idealism, particularly the philosophy of Schelling—the Liubo-mudry, or Lovers of Wisdom, who included V. F. Odoevskii and D. V. Venevitinov. The ideas of humanism and the Enlightenment were characteristic of dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry) liberals, such as I. P. Pnin, A. S. Kaisarov, V. V. Popugaev, and V. F. Malinovskii.
Russian progressive social thought of the first quarter of the 19th century reached its highest level of development in the work of the Decembrists, who included N. M. Murav’ev, P. I. Pestel’, N. A. Bestuzhev, A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinskii, K. F. Ry-leev, S. I. Murav’ev-Apostol, V. F. Raevskii, N. A. Kriukov, A. P. Bariatinskii, and I. D. Iakushkin. In the Decembrists’ sociopolitical and philosophic views, ideas deriving from the Enlightenment were combined with romantic ideas. Among the views deriving from the Enlightenment were rejection of autocracy, serfdom, and feudal privileges and the concepts of natural law, the sovereignty of the people, and freedom of political and economic activity. Among the romantic ideas were an orientation to the agrarian and commercial development of Russia, the criticism of manufacturing-industrial civilization and the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century, and the idealization of various forms of folk life and the “liberties” of old Novgorod.
In the early 1820’s, an obscurantist group headed by the archimandrite Photius embarked on the path of uncompromising struggle against all liberal philosophy, “mystical” philosophy, and modern philosophy of every kind. Through the efforts of M. L. Magnitskii, D. P. Runich, and other reactionaries, unprecedented harassment directed against university philosophy—and even clerical-academic philosophy—was organized. In 1850, philosophy, except for logic and psychology, was withdrawn from the system of university instruction.
The main exponents of theist thought between the 1830’s and the 1860’s were F. F. Sidonskii, F. A. Golubinskii, I. M. Skvor-tsov, V. N. Karpov, O. M. Novitskii, P. D. Iurkevich, and S. S. Gogotskii. These philosophers concerned themselves primarily with the history of philosophy and systematically opposed newer rationalist and materialist thought. They based themselves primarily on the traditions of Platonic idealism and strove to create an Orthodox philosophy that was autonomous of theology.
From the 1830’s to the 1860’s, problems of Russia’s historical fate dominated Russian nonacademic thought. A philosophy of Russian history close to the official doctrine of “orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality” as formulated by S. S. Uvarov was propagated by M. P. Pogodin and S. P. Shevyrev. The philosophy of history espoused by I. V. Kireevskii, A. S. Khomiakov, K. S. Aksakov, and other early Slavophiles idealized the “distinctiveness” of pre-Petrine forms of folk life and the village commune. The Slavophiles criticized the foundations of Western European civilization, including such philosophic elements as rationalism, materialism, individualism, and the Enlightenment’s conception of freedom and humanism. Deriving from the later Schelling’s philosophy of revelation and Eastern pa-tristics, they put forth an ideal of a distinctive Russian philosophy, in which the act of cognition would be imbued with faith and a kind of speculative unity realized—“integral knowledge.”
In his philosophic and historical conception, P. Ia. Chaa-daev, the author of Philosophical Letters and other works, strove to provide some idea of a general law for the succession of historical eras that would be distinct from the views of the Enlightenment, the teachings of the official church, and the beliefs of Slavophilism. Despite a pessimism linked to his rejection of Russia’s autocracy and serf system, Chaadaev was convinced that in the future Russia would be able to play a role in world history if the country’s faith in the spirit of the traditions of Western European Christianity was revived.
From the 1830’s to the 1860’s, dvorianstvo and bourgeois liberalism matured in Russia. Its philosophic and historical principles were developed by publicists, including N. A. Polevoi, M. T. Kachenovskii, N. I. Nadezhdin, V. P. Botkin, P. V. An-nenkov, and V. N. Maikov, and liberal professors, such as T. N. Granovskii, P. N. Kudriavtsev, and K. D. Kavelin. These individuals attacked spiritualism and mysticism on the basis of positions deriving from liberalism and the Enlightenment. West-ernizers, they opposed conservative and romantic philosophic conceptions of the sort put forth by the Slavophiles. They were opposed to the ideas of the patriarchal system but also to the ideas of the revolutionary Enlightenment. In the 1840’s, many of them attempted to overcome idealist philosophic and historical conceptions—particularly the Hegelian conception—and inclined more and more to positivism.
The 1840’s, 1850’s, and 1860’s saw the development and flowering of the classic form of materialist philosophic thought, which served as the foundation of the revolutionary democratic and Utopian socialist movement in Russia. Materialist philosophic thought first emerged in the study circles of N. V. Stankevich, M. A. Bakunin, and V. G. Belinskii; A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev; M. V. Petrashevskii; and N. A. Speshnev. In the 1830’s, Stankevich, Bakunin, Belinskii, Herzen, and Ogarev passed through a stage of objective idealism, and romanticism still colored their Utopian socialism and the ideas they held that derived from the Enlightenment. Materialist philosophic thought found its culmination in N. G. Chernyshevskii, N. A. Dobroliubov, D. I. Pisarev, and their comrades-in-arms of the 1860’s, including M. A. Antonovich and N. V. Shelgunov. By the mid-1840’s, Belinskii’s materialist views were fully developed.
In the 1840’s and 1850’s, Herzen (Letters on the Study of Nature, 1844–46) and Chernyshevskii (The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy, 1860) played an especially great role in the formation of an integral philosophic materialism, the consolidation of the strong materialist tradition of advanced currents of Russian society, and the strengthening of natural scientific thought. The strengthening of materialist monism, one of the primary achievements of Russian thought of the 1860’s, was due, first and foremost, to the philosophic work of “the great Russian Hegelian and materialist, N. G. Chernyshevskii” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 381).
The progressive “men of the sixties” based philosophy, sociology, ethics, and aesthetics on anthropological principles, which in numerous and vital respects did not agree with the anthropological materialism of L. Feuerbach. The works of Pisarev and other publicists for Russkoe slovo (The Russian Word) showed the influence of vulgar mechanist materialism and positivism, although in Pisarev there were elements of dialectics. In the works of Chernyshevskii, Dobroliubov, and their comrades-in-arms and followers, the materialist philosophy of Russian revolutionary democracy was further developed; striving to overcome the contemplative character of 18th-century materialism, to combine materialism with the dialectical idea of development, and to create a “philosophy of action,” it represented a new level in the development of pre-Marxist materialism.
In the postreform period, philosophic life in Russian society gradually became more lively, and the struggle between various philosophic orientations grew more acute. The sharpest struggle was that between materialism and idealism. After philosophy was restored to the university curriculum in 1863, universities became hotbeds for the spread of idealist thought. P. D. Iurkevich, who was strongly attracted to Christian Platonism, primarily worked on problems of anthropology. Positivism acquired a degree of influence through the work of M. M. Troi-tskii, a follower of associationism in psychology, and G. E. Struve. N. Ia. Grot, chairman of the Moscow Psychological Society (founded in 1889) and editor of the journal Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii (Problems of Philosophy and Psychology, published from 1889 to 1918), passed from positivism to the construction of a metaphysics based on the data of experimental science (monodualism). A. A. Kozlov, on the other hand, went from positivism to spiritualistic “panpsychism.”
When official Orthodoxy entered a period of crisis between the 1860’s and the 1890’s, attempts to rationalize and “philosophize” Orthodoxy multiplied. V. D. Kudriavtsev, an exponent of clerical-academic philosophy in postreform Russia, propagated a Christian philosophy of “transcendental monism,” which was to stand in opposition to both materialism and idealism. Attempts to adapt the Orthodox Church to the times were manifested in the efforts of N. G. Debol’skii, A. I. Brovkovich, and P. A. Miloslavskii to effect a union of religion with Hegel-ianism, neo-Kantianism, and positivism.
In the second half of the 19th century, an influential current in natural science materialism emerged as a result of the work of I. M. Sechenov, K. A. Timiriazev, E. Metchnikoff, D. I. Mendeleev, A. G. Stoletov, N. A. Umov, and I. P. Pavlov. These scientists criticized idealist conceptions and developed conceptions of cognitive theory that, despite some positivist influence, remained at base materialist.
In the postreform period, R. A. Fadeev and V. P. Meshcher-skii strove in their philosophic-historical constructions for a “regeneration of society” by means of “conservative reaction.” An extreme form of this was the thinking of K. N. Leont’ev on the reconstruction of Russian society on the basis of the principles of “Byzantinism.” The social-philosophic ideas of a movement composed of nationalists believing in a strong government were propagated by M. N. Katkov and K. P. Pobedonostsev. N. Ia. Danilevskii, the creator of a theory of “cultural-historical types,” became the chief ideologist of Pan-Slavism. Iu. F. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev, I. S. Aksakov, and other Slavophiles also continued their activity during this period. A. A. Kireev was one of the so-called Slavophile-nationalists of the late 19th century.
A distinctive combination of conservative-romantic and humanist elements was characteristic of pochvennichestvo (“grassroots movement”), which represented a modification of the Slavophile doctrine of a distinctive path of development for Russia; the main ideologists of the movement were A. A. Gri-gor’ev, N. N. Strakhov, and F. M. Dostoevsky. Conservative-romantic and humanist elements were also found in Tolstoy-ism, which was based on the ethicophilosophic ideas of L. N. Tolstoy concerning universal love, passive resistance to evil, and moral improvement.
A utopian effort at a “universal synthesis” of philosophy, theology, and experimental science was made by VI. Solov’ev, who proposed the conception of “integral knowledge, or free theoso-phy.” As a social ideal of universal human organization he proposed “integral society, or free theocracy.” Solov’ev’s ideas, especially his doctrine of the “total-unity,” had a considerable influence on the subsequent development of Russian idealist philosophy. The leading philosophers and sociologists of the dvorianstvo-liberal orientation in the postreform period were B. N. Chicherin, who was close to philosophic metaphysics of the Hegelian type, and K. D. Kavelin, a partisan of a dualistic psychophysical parallelism. Beginning in the 1860’s, the chief organ of bourgeois liberalism was the journal Vest ni k Evropy (The Messenger of Europe), headed by M. M. Stasiulevich. The ideological-philosophic leanings of liberalism included “exact” and “positive” science and a philosophy of “realism.” Although this philosophy of realism rejected superstition and extreme mysticism, it at the same time opposed materialism and espoused “healthy idealism” and religion. Such ideas were pursued in political economy, jurisprudence, literary theory and criticism, and historiography. Outstanding positivist philosophers included G. N. Vyrubov, a representative of the Comtian orientation, and E. V. Roberti.
Populism (Narodnichestvo) as a current of social thought was based primarily on subjective sociology, which rejected “impersonal” evolution, advocated a moral attitude to the phenomena of societal life and an active role for the individual in the course of history, and believed in historical progress and the reconstruction of society in accordance with the ethical ideals of the “advanced” and developed individual. Leading exponents included P. L. Lavrov (Historical Letters, 1870) and N. K. Mikhailovskii. The ideas of “economic materialism” put forth by M. A. Bakunin, and P. N. Tkachev, which in part opposed ethical subjectivism, also influenced the Narodniki to a certain extent. On the whole, the Narodniki espoused an ideal-realistic philosophy that resulted from the synthesis of elements of various heterogeneous systems, both materialist and idealist.
The beginning of the extensive spread of Marxist ideas throughout Russia dates to the postreform period. I. I. Kaufman published a review of K. Marx’ Das Kapital, and the publication of the Russian translation of Das Kapital provoked some discussion. At the end of the 1870’s, N. I. Ziber published some pieces on Marxist dialectics apropos F. Engels’ Anti-Dühring. Marxism exerted its greatest influence on Russian thought in the 1860’s, 1870’s, and early 1880’s, chiefly in the areas of political economy and sociology. This created a climate in the 1880’s favoring a switch to Marxist positions by some revolutionary Narodniki, including G. V. Plekhanov and his followers in the vanguard. In the 1890’s, Marxism became an independent current of Russian social and philosophic thought.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were a number of influential idealist philosophic currents in Russia’s universities. S. N. Trubetskoi moved from the metaphysics of Solov’ev’s total-unity to a conception of “concrete idealism.” L. M. Lopa-tin developed a system of “psychological metaphysics” with a tendency toward ethical personalism. N. O. Losskii espoused “organic ideal-realism” in metaphysics and intuitivism in epis-temology. S. L. Frank reconciled Platonism with the intuitivism of Bergson. Neo-Kantians included A-dr I. V vedenskii, I. I. Lapshin, G. I. Chelpanov, P. I. Novgorodtsev, and B. V. Iako-venko. Less influential currents included neo-Hegelianism (I. A. Il’in), Husserlian philosophy (G. G. Shpet), personalism (E. A. Bobrov), and existentialism (L. Shestov). The rationalistic idealism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries devoted a good deal of attention to problems of epistemology and logic, being especially influenced in this respect by neo-Kantianism. A tendency to reduce philosophy to the theory of knowledge emerged. Most characteristic, however, were the evolution toward mysticism and irrationalism and the tendency to construct “new” conceptions of metaphysics. The anthropological conception of V. I. Nesmelov tended toward Christian personalism, and the ethicosubjective method dominated in the unorthodox religious philosophy of M. M. Tareev. P. A. Florenskii engaged in a paradoxical effort to construct a Christian metaphysics by blending Platonism with the aid of the most recent principles of natural science.
An erratic example of the conservative philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the work of V. V. Rozanov on anthropology, the “metaphysics of sex,” and the family question. At the beginning of the 20th century, D. S. Merezhkovskii advocated a “new religious consciousness”; he and Rozanov organized religiophilosophic gatherings in St. Petersburg in 1901. Merezhkovskii became one of the leaders of the bogo-iskatel’stvo (god-seeking) movement.
At the turn of the 20th century, bourgeois liberalism evolved in the area of politics from “legal Marxism” to the philosophy of the Constitutional Democrats. P. B. Struve and those of a similar bent sought to link the political principles of liberalism either with neo-Kantian rationalistic idealism (Struve, Novgorodtsev) or with religious metaphysics and the philosophy of history (N. A. Berdiaev, S. N. Bulgakov, Frank). The philosophy of Berdiaev subsequently evolved to Christian personalism and existentialism, and Bulgakov later shifted to Orthodox theology. The views of these bourgeois liberals were expressed most fully in the collections Problems of Idealism (1902) and Milestones (1909), which were sharply criticized by Lenin and other Russian Marxists.
The rationalistically positivist tendency of bourgeois liberalism was manifested especially in sociology. The ideas of positivist sociology found adherents among many Russian bourgeois jurists, such as S. A. Muromtsev, a Constitutional Democrat who attempted to reconcile biologism and psychologism in sociology, and L. I. Petrazhitskii and N. M. Korkunov, who were exponents of the psychological current. One of the most important ideologists of bourgeois liberalism in the early 20th century was M. M. Kovalevskii. N. I. Kareev’s thinking was in the spirit of the ethicosociological school, which was close to Populist subjective sociology. P. N. Miliukov, who believed that “modern scientific sociology” should replace “metaphysics,” was a partisan of the practical-empirical current.
A natural scientific orientation in psychology developed that was closely linked to the ideas of Sechenov and Pavlov. Manifestations of this current included the “objective psychology” and “psychoreflexology” of V. M. Bekhterev, the “biopsycholo-gy” of V. A. Vagner, and the “real psychology” of N. N. Lange. Well-known studies on logic were written by M. I. Karinskii, L. V. Rutkovskii, P. S. Poretskii, S. N. Povarnin, and G. I. Chelpanov.
Petit bourgeois ideology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was represented by the philosophy of the neo-Narodniki, who included the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Popular Socialists, and that of the anarchists. V. M. Chernov, a Socialist Revolutionary philosopher, used the subjective method of Mikhailovskii and Lavrov, neo-Kantianism, and Machism to develop an anthropocentric system that was to be at once a “philosophy of reality” and a “philosophy of action.” P. A. Kropotkin, the main theoretician of anarchism in the 20th century, strove to create a synthetic philosophy that would embrace all the phenomena of nature and society; in his teachings, positivism and mechanistic materialism were intertwined.
The philosophy that had the greatest influence on the Russian Social Democratic movement was dialectical materialism. The works of Plekhanov, including On the Question of the Development of the Monistic View of History, The Role of the Individual in History, and Fundamental Problems of Marxism, were important to the spread of dialectical materialism and to the defense of the theory of historical materialism. Plekhanov left the beaten path to resolve the questions of the place of philosophy in the Marxist world view; the tasks, functions, and subject matter of philosophy; and the interrelationship of philosophy with the concrete sciences. He criticized the subjective-idealist conceptions of Populism and philosophical revisionism in the Russian and international workers’ movements. He also wrote as a historian of revolutionary democratic thought in Russia, basing himself on the traditions of this current. Plekhanov’s philosophic views were shared by L. I. Aksel’rod and A. M. Deborin.
The ideas of empiriocriticism achieved a certain currency at the beginning of the 20th century. Among those influenced were A. A. Bogdanov, V. A. Bazarov, and A. V. Lunacharskii, who declared that the central category of Marxist philosophy was not matter but labor and activity; this, in their opinion, embraced all of human practice. Lenin characterized the conception of Bogdanov and those who held similar views as philosophic revisionism.
The works of Lenin gave rise to a qualitatively new stage in Marxist philosophy. Lenin condemned revisionist efforts to substitute neo-Kantianism, Machism, and other non-Marxist conceptions for dialectical and historical materialism, as well as the efforts of certain theoreticians of the Second International to maintain a neutral position on philosophic issues. Taking the ideas of Marx and Engels on the subject matter of Marxist philosophy as his base, Lenin made these ideas concrete and developed dialectical and historical materialism in the unity of its functions as world view, epistemology, and methodology. His attention centered on the elaboration of dialectics as a philosophic science, the working out of a universal theory of development, and the development of the logic and theory of knowledge of materialism.
Lenin formulated the idea of the identity of dialectics, logic, and the theory of knowledge and the law of the unity and struggle of opposites as the basic law of dialectics. He developed the theory of reflection, organically linking the theory with dialectics. He concretized the doctrine of objective truth and the doctrine of the interrelation of relative and absolute truth. He disclosed the movement of cognition from lively contemplation to abstract thinking, substantiated the role of practice as the foundation of knowledge and the criterion of truth, and provided a new definition of matter. Lenin generalized the most recent data of natural science and substantiated the need for an alliance of philosophers and naturalists.
Lenin developed the doctrine of historical materialism as both an organic component of the philosophy of Marxism and the general theoretical and methodological foundation of scientific sociology. He did work on problems of social being and social consciousness, socioeconomic formations, classes, the state, the relations between nations, the subjective factor, and the role of revolutionary theory. He also developed the theory of socialist revolution. Lenin criticized the semifatalistic, objec-tivistic, and passive-contemplative concepts of the “philosophy of history” as manifested in the doctrines of the Russian “economists” and Mensheviks and the theories about the automatic downfall of capitalism held by the ideologists of the Second International. He also criticized the voluntaristic and subjectivis-tic doctrines of anarchosyndicalism and neo-Populism. The Leninist philosophic legacy became the foundation for the development of Marxist philosophy after the Great October Socialist Revolution.
In the first years after the October Revolution, Marxist-Leninist philosophic science began a broad offensive against currents of idealist philosophy alien to Marxism and against the semi-Machist philosophic ideas of the ideologists of Proletkul’t. In 1918, Marxist research on philosophy was begun at the Socialist Academy (from 1924, the Communist Academy) of the Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR and at other scientific institutions. In the 1920’s the institute of philosophy of the Communist Academy, along with the institute of scientific philosophy of the Russian Association of Scientific Research Institutes of Social Sciences (RANION) and the philosophy division of the Institute of the Red Professors, became the center of Marxist philosophic thought in the country.
In spring 1922, “On the Significance of Militant Materialism,” the philosophic testament of V. I. Lenin, was published in the leading philosophic journal, Pod znamenem marksizma (Under the Banner of Marxism). In the 1920’s intensive work began on the publication and reissuance of the classic philosophic heritage, work that is continuing into the 1970’s. In the second half of the 1920’s, philosophic discussions took place between a group of philosophers called dialecticians, who were headed by Deborin, and the mechanists, who included A. K. Timiriazev, 1.1. Skvortsov-Stepanov, and L. I. Aksel’ rod. In 1929 and 1930, Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks were published in full for the first time, contributing to the further elaboration of the problems of the Leninist stage of Marxist philosophy.
After the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) of 1931 concerning the journal Pod znamenem marksizma, philosophers more actively participated in the resolution of the tasks of socialist construction. Marxist-Leninist philosophy became dominant not only in the social sciences but in the natural sciences as well. In 1936 the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR was created. The number of his-toricophilosophic studies rose in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; three volumes of The History of Philosophy were published.
The nature and course of philosophic research in the postwar years were determined by the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) of 1944 On Shortcomings in Scientific Work in Philosophy and other party decisions adopted in the 1940’s concerning ideological questions. The journal Voprosy filosofii (Problems of Philosophy) began publication in 1947. In the course of the discussion that took place in 1947 concerning G. F. Aleksandrov’s book The History of Western European Philosophy, paths were outlined for a reorganization of Soviet philosophic science to conform with the new conditions that had arisen for the USSR both internationally and domestically. New life was given to scientific research work and work to disseminate information on dialectical and historical materialism and philosophic questions of natural science. During this period the first specialized studies on ethics and aesthetics appeared.
The measures undertaken by the party in the 1950’s to cleanse the ideological atmosphere of the accretions of the cult of personality were beneficial to the development of Soviet philosophic science. A number of fundamental works were written on problems of dialectics as the methodology and logic of scientific thinking, as well as on the dialectics of the development of socialism and the transition to communism. Among the works published were The History of Philosophy (vols. 1–6), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vols. 1–5), and The History of Philosophy in the USSR (vols. 1–4).
Since the 1960’s, scientific research work and work to disseminate information on philosophy have been proceeding in accordance with the tasks formulated in the new Program of the CPSU (1961), the decisions of congresses of the CPSU, and the decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU.


Plekhanov, G. V. Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli, books 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1925.
Plekhanov, G. V. Izbr. filosofskie proizvedeniia, vol. 4. Moscow, 1958.
Vasetskii, G., and M. Iovchuk. Ocherki po istorii russkogo materializma XVIII i XIX vekov. Moscow, 1942.
Anan’ev, B. G. Ocherki istorii russkoi psikhologii XVIII i XIX vv. Moscow, 1947.
I z istorii russkoi filosofii: Sb. st. Moscow, 1949.
Ocherki po istorii filosofskoi i obshchestvenno-politicheskoi mysli narodov SSSR, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1955–56.
Ocherki po istorii logiki v Rossii. Moscow, 1962.
Istoriia filosofii v SSSR, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1968–71.
Galaktionov, A. A., and P. F. Nikandrov. Russkaia filosofiia XI – XIX vekov. Leningrad, 1970.
Bobrov, E. A. Filosofiia v Rossii: Materialy, issledovaniia i zametki, fascs. 1–6. Kazan, 1899–1903.
Grunzenberg, S. Ocherki sovremennoi russkoi filosofii. St. Petersburg, 1911.
Filippov, M. M. Sud’by russkoi filosofii, parts 1–2. St. Petersburg, 1904.
Ivanov-Razumnik, R. V. Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli, vols. 1–2. St. Petersburg, 1907.
Radlov, E. Ocherk istorii russkoi filosofii, 2nd ed. Petrograd, 1920.
Shpet, G. Ocherk razvitiia russkoi filosofii, part 1. Petrograd, 1922.
Iakovenko, B. Ocherki russkoi filosofii. Berlin, 1922.
Zen’kovskii, V. V. Istoriia russkoi filosofii, vols. 1–2. Paris, 1948–50.
Koyré, A. Etudes sur l’histoire de la pensée philosophique en Russie. Paris, 1950.
Lossky, N. History of Russian Philosophy. New York, 1951.
Walicki, A. Rosyjska filozofia i myśl społeczna od oś wiecenia do marksizmu. Warsaw, 1973.
HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Historical works were written in ancient Rus’ in the late tenth and early 11th centuries. The Kiev and Novgorod chronicles appeared in the 11th century. The all-Russian collection of the 11th and early 12th centuries known as the Primary Chronicle synthesized earlier works and exerted a great influence on subsequent feudal historiography in medieval Rus’. The first Russian works in which aspects of world history were treated appeared in the 11th through 13th centuries (The Greek and Roman Chronicle). In the period of feudal fragmentation, chronicles were written in the various principalities and separate lands; there were, for example, chronicles of Tver’, Novgorod, and Rostov. The historical narratives and collections of chronicles, particularly the all-Russian collection of 1479–80, sought to justify the rights of the Muscovite princes, who strove to unify Rus’ around Moscow, over all of Russia.
With the formation of the Russian centralized state, the writing of chronicles was centered at the court of the Muscovite grand princes and tsars and was subordinated to a basic political task—the strengthening of autocratic power. Examples are seen in The Book of Ranks, the Voskresensk Chronicle, and the Nikon Chronicle. The 16th century saw the transition from a system of historical writing where events were narrated year by year to a more topical approach (The History of the Kazan Kingdom and A. M. Kurbskii’s History of the Grand Prince of Moscow).
The appearance of the Chronography (1512 edition) testified to a broader outlook on the part of the authors of historical writings; here was a survey of world history, as then conceived, from earliest times to 1453, including an account of Russian history. The New Chronicle, a work that sought to glorify the Romanov tsarist dynasty, was compiled in the 1630’s. Later editions of Chronography contained a great deal of new material. In the late 16th century and the early 17th, the Siberian Chronicles were compiled; their main theme was Ermak’s campaigns and the exploration and settlement of Siberia. Historical tales, such as I. Timofeev’s Chronicle and Avraamii Palitsyn’s Legend, became common.
There was evidence that Russian historiography was approaching a level from which the transition to historical scholarship could begin. The first textbook of Russian history, the Synopsis, was published in Kiev in 1674; other significant works included S. A. Medvedev’s Brief Contemplation of the Years 7190, 7191, 7192 (that is, 1681–84), and A. I. Lyzlov’s Scythian History. Certain elements of rationalism are encountered in these works.
Historical works appearing in the first quarter of the 18th century sought to provide an ideological justification for the policies of an absolutist state, wherein power was wielded by the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry). In the early 1720’s, the History of the Swedish War (published 1770) was written; the first part of the work, covering events up to 1715, was personally edited by Peter I. The systematic search for and collection of historical materials, including archaeological materials, was initiated by Peter I. The systematic search for and collection of historical materials, including archaeological materials, was initiated by Peter I (ukases of 1718, 1720, 1722). One of the first works of historical synthesis was A. I. Mankiev’s The Core of Russian History (1715), in which an account of events was given up to the beginning of the 18th century. After the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in 1724, the development of historical writing in Russia was taken over, to a great extent, by scholars invited from Western Europe, predominantly German scholars. These scholars, G. S. Bayer in particular, laid the foundation for the Norman theory. G. F. Miller studied history from earliest times to the mid-18th century. He gathered valuable material on the history of Siberia and wrote, among other works, the History of Siberia (1750). A. L. Schletzer studied the history of Russian chronicle writing. Great strides in Russian historiography were made by V. N. Tatishchev. His five-volume Russian History (presented to the Academy of Sciences in 1739, published between 1768 and 1848) covered the period up to the end of the 16th century and was devoted primarily to political history. M. V. Lomonosov presented a vigorous criticism of the views of the Normanists. In his writings on Miller’s thesis and in his work Ancient Russian History, which covers the period up to 1054, Lomonosov sought to prove that the organization of a Russian state system preceded the “summoning” of the Varangians; he viewed Russian history in the context of world history. Further developments in the writing of Russian history from the viewpoint of dvorianstvo historiography were linked to M. M. Shcherbatov and I. N. Boltin.
The emergence of bourgeois relations in Russia predetermined the appearance of works on the country’s economic history written by representatives of the merchant class and middle-level officialdom. Examples are seen in I. I. Golikov’s The Deeds of Peter the Great and Addenda to the Deeds of Peter the Great (30 vols., 1788–97) and in M. D. Chulkov’s Historical Account of Russian Commerce (21 vols., 1781–1888). There were also developments in the writing of local history. V. V. Kresti-nin was the author of works on the history of Arkhangel’sk and Kholmogory, and P. I. Rychkov wrote his Orenburg Topography (two parts, 1762). A fundamentally new conception of history was contained in the works of the first Russian revolutionary-representative of the Enlightenment, A. N. Radishchev, who regarded the historical process as a cyclic struggle between “freedom” and “despotism.”
The publication of historical sources, extensive for the time, contributed to the development of Russian historiography in the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th. Prominent among those participating in the publication were N. I. Novikov, a Russian representative of the Enlightenment, N. N. Bantysh-Kamenskii, and A. I. Musin-Pushkin. In 1829, at the initiative of the outstanding student of early texts P. M. Stroev, the Office of Early Texts was set up; the office systematically collected and published documents of ancient Rus’ and also compiled the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. The broader range of sources that became available aided in the development of auxiliary historical disciplines (study of sources, paleography, historical geography, the study of early texts, heraldry, numismatics). Under a new university statute of 1835, special chairs of Russian history were created, which during the course of the 19th century became nuclei for the development of historical scholarship. Various scholarly institutions and societies were founded. The historical conception of N. M. Karamzin, an ideologist of dvorianstvo circles, was formed under conditions of crisis in the feudal-serf system in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. In History of the Russian State (12 vols., 1816–29), Karamzin views autocracy, supported by the dvorianstvo, as the driving force in the state. M. P. Pogodin subscribed to similar views.
Bourgeois historiography established itself in the first half of the 19th century. While sharing the antirevolutionary orientation of official dvorianstvo historiography, bourgeois historians could not, however, regard the dvorianstvo school’s methodology and use of sources as satisfactory. This objection led to the emergence of the skeptical school (M. T. Kachenovskii, N. S. Artsybashev), which demanded a more critical approach to historical sources, an approach involving careful study and comparison with other sources. Taking issue with Karamzin’s conception and relying on the views of the leading bourgeois historians of the West (B. G. Niebuhr, F. Guizot, A. Thierry), N. A. Polevoi wrote the History of the Russian People (6 vols., 1829–33), in which he attempted to show the link between Russian history and the history of Western Europe. He also advocated an objective evaluation of source material. The works of S. M. Solov’ev occupy a prominent place in Russian bourgeois historiography. Emphasizing the relationship between events, Solov’ev approached Russian history as a unified and regular process of development involving the transition from a clan system to the triumph of state relations. His work of historical synthesis was The History of Russia From the Earliest Times (29 vols.).
The political aspirations of the Russian bourgeoisie were reflected in the state school, whose founders were the jurists and prominent liberals K. D. Kavelin and B. N. Chicherin. On a number of issues, Solov’ev also sided with the school. While acknowledging the existence of historical laws and the principle of causality, exponents of the state school used these ideas as a new basis for views concerning the exceptional nature and uniqueness of the Russian historical process.
Closely bound up with the sociopolitical struggle of the mid-19th century were the historical views of the Slavophiles (K. S. Aksakov, D. A. Valuev, I. V. Kireevskii, P. V. Kireevskii, A. S. Khomiakov, I. D. Beliaev), who viewed the history of Russia as a distinctive process, founded on the communal life of the Russian people and characterized by peaceful coexistence of people and government until disrupted by the reforms of Peter I.
Revolutionary historical thought also underwent development in the first half of the 19th century in Russia. The Decembrists, who were revolutionaries from the gentry class, were highly critical of Karamzin’s historical views. In his critique of Karamzin’s History of the Russian State, N. M. Murav’ev advanced the thesis in 1818 that “history belongs to the people.” P. I. Pestel’, P. G. Kakhovskii, and N. A. Bestuzhev, among others, viewed history as essentially the struggle of the people against oppression. An upsurge in revolutionary democratic historical thought in Russia was associated with the revolutionary democrats V. G. Belinskii, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, N. G. Chernyshevskii, and N. A. Dobroliubov. While the revolutionary democrats were not professional historians and did not, on the whole, go beyond an idealist conception of history, they approached a materialist conception of the fundamental questions of history. They attached great importance to the production of material wealth and appreciated in particular the role of the masses in the history of society.
N. I. Kostomarov criticized various propositions of the state school and called for the study of the history of the people. In the 1840’s and 1850’s he studied the life of the people, economic development, and the history of popular and national liberation movements in the Ukraine and Russia.
The expansion of economic ties with European countries, the growth of Russia’s importance in international affairs, and the influence of the French Revolution did much to further the study of world history, which by the mid-19th century had become an independent branch of Russian historical scholarship. The founder of medieval studies in Russia was T. N. Granov-skii, a professor at Moscow University. The upsurge of the national liberation struggles of the Slavic peoples against the Turkish yoke stimulated the development of Slavic studies in Russia. One of the most prominent Slavicists was V. I. Laman-skii, whose theses “On the Slavs in Asia Minor, in Africa, and in Spain” (1859) and “On a Historical Study of the Greco-Slavic World in Europe” (1871) and other works contained much factual material.
The absorption by the Russian Empire of the peoples of Transcaucasia and Middle Asia, the strengthening of ties with these peoples, and the exploration and settlement of Siberia and Alaska stimulated the study of the East. A faculty of oriental studies was set up at St. Petersburg University in 1855. The University of Kazan became a major center for oriental studies; I. N. Berezin, a professor at the university, studied the history of the Mongols and published translations of texts of Sheban, Rashid al-Din, and Abdul Ghazi. N. Ia. Bichurin (as a monk, called Iakinf) laid the basis for sinology in Russia; during a sojourn in China, he collected extensive and valuable material on the history of China and other Asian countries and translated the material into Russian.
The variety of themes upon which historical research was done expanded considerably in the 1860’s. There was growing interest in the history of industry, trade and finance, and cities and in the history of the estates, especially the peasantry, but the treatment of historical questions was conditioned by the ideology of the historian. Official dvorianstvo historiography looked to the past as a way of proving the inviolability of the monarchical order in Russia (N. P. Barsukov, N. F. Dubrovin, D. I. Ilovaiskii, N. K. Shil’der, K. N. Bestuzhev-Riumin). Bourgeois historiography became the dominant school in the post-reform period, expanding the topics of research and range of sources and developing the methodology of historical research.
Solov’ev’s student V. I. Kliuchevskii was an outstanding Russian bourgeois historian, author of a number of valuable studies on the examination of sources and on questions in socioeconomic history. His work of historical synthesis is the Course of Russian History. Kliuchevskii introduced important factual material and subjected to criticism many of the positions of the state school, demonstrating the groundlessness of the school’s views regarding the origin of serfdom in Russia and other questions. Kliuchevskii was the first in Russian historiography to formulate the conception of social classes. The economic history of Russia was the subject of the early works of S. B. Vese-lovskii, Iu. V. Got’e, and S. V. Bakhrushin.
A special place in the bourgeois historiography of the late 19th and early 20th centuries belongs to N. P. Pavlov-Sil’van-skii, who argued that the historical processes in Russia and Western Europe constituted a unity and who proved the existence of feudalism in medieval Russia.
The history of the reforms of the 1860’s and 1870’s became a new theme for study (I. I. Ivaniukov, G. A. Dzhanshiev, A. A. Kornilov). An important role in the development of a technique for the proper evaluation of sources was played by the works of A. A. Shakhmatov, who developed methods for analyzing the content of collections of chronicles on the basis of linguistic evidence and the historical conditions at the time the chronicle was written. Questions of diplomatics and other auxiliary historical disciplines were studied by A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii, N. P. Likhachev, A. I. Andreev, and S. N. Valk. The works of N. P. Barsov, S. M. Seredonin, and M. K. Liubavskii were devoted to historical geography.
In the second half of the 19th century, a revolutionary-democratic school, which had its roots in the prereform period, took shape in Russian historiography. The historian and democrat A. P. Shchapov, who was strongly influenced by the views of N. G. Chernyshevskii and D. I. Pisarev, regarded the history of the people as the main theme of historical research. V. V. Bervi (pen name N. Flerovskii) was the first to turn to the history of the working class in Russia, amassing much factual material on this theme (The Condition of the Working Class in Russia, 1869). His work was regarded highly by K. Marx. Particular attention was devoted to the history of the peasantry by such theoretists of Narodnichestvo (Populism) as P. L. Lavrov. The question of the development of capitalism in Russia was posed (N. F. Da-niel’son, V. P. Vorontsov, V. E. Postnikov). Efforts were made to prove that capitalism in Russia, which had developed in a unique way, was accidental and that Russia could bypass the capitalist stage of development and through the peasant commune proceed directly to socialism. The eminent Narodnik historian V. I. Semevskii studied the history of the peasantry using materials drawn from the archives for the first time.
The most important phenomenon in Russian historiography of the postreform period was the emergence in the 1880’s of a Marxist school and the dissemination in Russia of a materialist view of history. The works of G. V. Plekhanov were of great importance in propagating and defending the theory of historical materialism. Plekhanov was the first to focus on the history of the proletarian revolutionary movement in Russia and to study the history of Russian social thought from a Marxist viewpoint.
The Marxist conception of Russia’s history was further developed by V. I. Lenin. In numerous basic studies and publicistic writings, Lenin dealt with the fundamental questions of Russian history and many questions of world history (What the “Friends of the People” Are, and How They Fight the Social Democrats [1894], The Development of Capitalism in Russia [1896–99], Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism [1916], Lecture on the 1905 Revolution [1917]). Lenin made major contributions to, for example, the doctrine of the interrelationship of general, particular, and specific laws governing the development of society, the doctrine concerning the development of productive forces and production relations, and the doctrines of classes and class struggle, social revolution, a new type of Marxist party, the nation, and the national liberation movement. He studied the postreform socioeconomic and political development of Russia, the domestic and foreign policy of tsar-ism, and the history of the revolutionary movement and revolutionary Social Democracy. Adding significantly to the Marxist analysis of capitalism, Lenin formulated the doctrine concerning imperialism. He developed the Marxist theory of socialist revolution and concluded that it was possible for socialism to be victorious initially in several countries or even in one. Of enormous importance for the establishment and development of Marxist historiography were the principles worked out by Lenin of party spirit in historical science and a class analysis of historical events. Lenin’s critique of the methodological foundations of dvorianstvo, bourgeois, and petit bourgeois—including reformist—historiography was also important in developing Marxist historiography.
The Marxist conception of Russian and world history was first developed by such Marxists as A. G. Shlikhter, A. M. Sto-pani, A. V. Shestakov, M. P. Miliutin, N. N. Baturin, V. V. Vo-rovskii, M. N. Liadov, N. M. Lukin, F. A. Rotshtein, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, and A. V. Lunacharskii. The first systematic work on Russian history was written by M. N. Pokrovskii, who attempted to treat the history of Russia from a Marxist viewpoint. Opposed to Marxists were such dvorianstvo and bourgeois historians as P. N. Miliukov and Lappo-Danilevskii.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, works of the legal Marxists made their appearance in bourgeois historiography (M. I. Tugan-Baranovskii, P. B. Struve). Members of this school shared the views of Western European bourgeois economists and sociologists, but in claiming that capitalism developed in Russia in accordance with certain laws, they used various tenets of Marx’ doctrine. The historic views of N. A. Rozhkov, who sided with the Mensheviks, were contradictory.
Questions of world history formed the topics of works by V. I. Ger’e, I. V. Luchitskii, N. I. Kareev, P. N. Vinogradov, R. Iu. Vipper, D. M. Petrushevskii, V. V. Latyshev, V. P. Buze-skul, M. M. Khvostov, and V. I. Modestov. A large contribution to the development of historical knowledge was made by M. M. Kovalevskii, whose works on the history of the primitive communal system were used by F. Engels.
In the second half of the 19th and in the early 20th century, bourgeois historiography achieved notable success in the study of the history of the Slavs (works of F. I. Leontovich, F. I. Us-penskii, M. K. Liubavskii). V. G. Vasilevskii and F. I. Uspenskii were outstanding Byzantinists. V. P. Vasil’ev, M. V. Nikol’skii, B. A. Turaev, and V. V. Bartol’d, among others, did important work in the area of oriental studies. During this period, Russian archaeology scored important successes in the discovery and study of the material remains of man’s past. The works of A. A. Spitsyn, V. A. Gorodtsov, B. V. Farmakovskii and M. I. Ro-stovtzeff, N. I. Veselovskii, N. Ia. Marr, and I. E. Zabelin, which introduced much new material into the field, had great importance.
The victory of the October Revolution of 1917 resulted in the establishment of Marxist-Leninist methodology in historical research. The Leninist ideological legacy determined the direction and topics of historical research. The formation of Soviet historical scholarship proceeded in the context of a sharp struggle between bourgeois and Marxist ideologies. Problems of history were studied in the Socialist Academy of Social Sciences, in the Russian Academy of the History of Material Culture, and in commissions on the history of the Communist Party (Ist-part), the trade union movement (Istprof), and the youth movement (Istmol) in Russia. Historical questions were also studied at the Marx-Engels Institute, at certain higher educational institutions, at the Society of Former Political Prisoners and Exiles, at the Society of Old Bolsheviks, at the Society of Marxist Historians, and, from 1929, at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The journals that first appeared in the 1920’s played a significant role in the formation of Soviet historical scholarship; they included Proletarskaia revo-liutsiia, Krasnaia letopis’, Krasnyi arkhiv, Letopis’ revoliutsii, Ka-torga i ssylka, and Istorik-marksist. During the 1920’s, the first works were written in the RSFSR on the history of the February and October revolutions and the Civil War, the history of socialist construction was first studied, and much attention was devoted to research on the history of the Communist Party. The study of Russian capitalism and imperialism was begun. Historians of various schools of thought continued their research on Russian and world history and gradually shifted to a Marxist position. Historians of the RSFSR also turned their attention to questions of world history and to the history of bourgeois revolutions, the working class and the revolutionary movement, international relations, and national liberation movements of modern times. The resolutions of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR in the years 1934–36 on the study and teaching of history in primary and secondary schools and higher educational institutions contributed to the development of historical scholarship in the RSFSR.
Prior to and during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, great attention was devoted to military history and the history of the Slavs and to the struggle against fascist ideology and fascist falsifications of world history.
In the postwar period, historians of the RSFSR continued research on such important topics as the history of the peasantry, the development of the feudal state, the history of the revolutionary movement, and the history of the national economy. In world history, the areas of study included ancient oriental history, antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Byzantine. Empire, mass popular movements of the capitalist period, international relations, and military history. New areas of study included popular democratic revolutions, the development of people’s democracies, and the emergence of the world socialist system.
The decisions of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU (1956) and the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU of June 30, 1956, On Overcoming the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences exerted a positive influence on the development of historical scholarship. In works dealing with the history of feudalism in Russia, much attention was given to such topics associated with the formation of the feudal stage as the development of productive forces and the formation of social relations, feudal rent and the change in the forms of exploitation, the history of the peasantry, class struggle, the development of the medieval city, the evolution of the feudal state, international relations, and the history of feudal ideology and culture. Much was done in studying feudalism by the archaeologists of the RSFSR. The variety of topics dealt with in connection with the history of Russian capitalism expanded markedly. There was deeper study of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the development of capitalist industry and the formation of the working class, agrarian history, imperialism, and the development of the conditions necessary for socialist revolution in Russia. The history of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 was studied exhaustively. Research continued on the history of the Civil War and military intervention of 1918–20, the history of the New Economic Policy and socialist construction, the history of the Soviet peasantry and the working class, collectivization and industrialization, and the history of the cultural revolution and the creation of Soviet socialist culture. The study of both Lenin’s life and the significance of his works for historical scholarship occupies an important place in the work of RSFSR historians.
An important role in the development of Soviet historical scholarship was played by the resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU on ideological questions, particularly the 1967 resolution On Measures for the Further Development of the Social Sciences and the Enhancement of Their Role in Communist Construction, and by the decisions of the congresses and plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
Examples of the achievements of RSFSR historians are seen in the multivolume works The History of Moscow (vols. 1–6), Essays on the History of Leningrad (vols. 1–6), History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (vols. 1–2), and the History of Siberia From Earliest Times to the Present (vols. 1–5) and in the histories of the autonomous republics and a number of cities (Volgograd, Sverdlovsk, Tula). Research in the history of the CPSU carried on in the RSFSR by the leading institution for party history in the country, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the CPSU, by the institute’s Moscow and Leningrad branches, and by subdepartments of the history of the CPSU at higher educational institutions. In addition to general topics of party history, topics that are treated for the most part by the aforementioned institutions, the history of local party organizations is also studied. Here, research is carried out with the aid of the archives of oblast and krai committees of the CPSU. Essays have been published on the history of the party organizations of the autonomous republics and many oblasts. The historians of the RSFSR work closely with the historians of all the other Union republics of the USSR.
The history of prerevolutionary Russia and the RSFSR is studied by researchers of the Institute of the History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, teachers in the history departments of the higher educational institutions in the RSFSR, researchers of the scientific research institutes of history, literature, and language of the autonomous republics of the Russian Federation, and researchers of other scholarly institutions. Documents pertaining to the history of the RSFSR are kept in the Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, oblast archives, and the Central State Archive of the RSFSR (founded in 1964).


Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi naukiv SSSR, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1955–66.
Ivanova, L. V. U istokov sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki: Podgotovka kadrov istorikov-marksistov v 1917–29 gg. Moscow, 1968.
Alekseeva, G. D. Oktiabr’skaia revoliutsiia i istoricheskaia nauka v Rossii (1917–1923 gg.) Moscow, 1968.
Alpatov, M. A. Russkaia istoricheskaia mysl’ i Zapadnaia Evropa. XII-XVII vv. Moscow, 1973.
50 let sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki: Khronika nauchnoi zhizni, 1917–1967. Moscow, 1971.
ECONOMICS. In ancient Rus’, economic ideas were reflected in church treatises and legal enactments by the state. Even in the first documents of Kievan Rus’, economic ideas bore a class character. Problems concerning the preservation and strengthening of feudal landownership and the organization of production on the basis of the exploitation of peasant labor dominated economic thought throughout the feudal epoch. The main problems of economic thought in Russia in the late 16th century and in the 17th century included the limitation of boyar and patrimonial land tenure, the protection of pomest’e (fief) land tenure, the development of manufacture production, and the expansion of the country’s domestic and foreign trade.
Peter I carried out an economic policy that promoted the strengthening of absolutism, the development of trade and home industry, and the strengthening of the state’s finances at the expense of the peasantry. The economic thought of the first quarter of the 18th century was strikingly expressed in I. T. Po-soshkov’s On Poverty and Wealth (1724, published 1842), which viewed the development of industry and trade as the most important condition for the prosperity of the state and the people. Pososhkov considered it expedient to aid Russian merchants in their trade with foreigners and to export from Russia not raw materials but rather finished goods. He advocated levying moderate taxes on all classes and estates of society. He also demonstrated the necessity of regulating the obligations of the peasants and stressed that it was in the interests of the state to ensure the well-being of the peasant household.
In the 18th century, progressive economic ideas were advanced by M. V. Lomonosov. In his writings, Lomonosov fought for the study of the country’s natural resources, the construction of factories and plants, the development of trade, and the enactment of measures promoting the growth of the population. His was the idea of utilizing the Northern Sea Route for the country’s economic needs.
With the feudal serf system breaking down and a capitalist structure emerging, the economic thought of the second half of the 18th century reflected the contradictions within the ruling class. A. P. Sumarokov, M. M. Shcherbatov, and other representatives of the reactionary dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry) supported the strengthening of the serf system and opposed the industrial development of the country, fearing the growth of merchant influence. D. A. Golitsyn, A. Ia. Polenov, I. A. Tret’-iakov, S. E. Desnitskii, and other ideologists of the liberal dvorianstvo criticized the excesses of serfdom and favored partial concessions to the peasantry—without, however, a disturbance of serf relations as a whole.
A brilliant representative of the ideology opposing serfdom was A. N. Radishchev, who raised the question of abolishing serfdom. He criticized the financial and taxation policies of tsarism, called for the development of industry, and pointed out the class contradictions between the entrepreneurs and those working in manufacture production. His works contained opinions on the problems of monetary circulation, prices, credit, and profits.
In the first half of the 19th century, ideologists of the dvorianstvo differed on questions of Russia’s future economic development. Three currents contended: the reactionary-conservative current of E. F. Kankrin, N. M. Karamzin, and others, who favored the preservation of the sociopolitical conditions that prevailed in Russia; the liberal current of M. M. Speranskii, N. S. Mordvinov, and others, who proposed a number of reforms in industry, finance, and tariff policy but without fundamental changes in the relations of serfdom; and the revolutionary current of the Decembrists. The economic views of the Decembrists represented an important stage in the development of Russian progressive economic thought. The Decembrists were concerned with a broad range of economic issues, including the abolition of serfdom, agrarian issues, the development of industry and trade, and the reorganization of the financial system. P. I. Pestel’ advocated the creation of a special land fund, from which each person could secure land for his own use. N. I. Turgenev wrote An Essay on the Theory of Taxes (1818), and M. F. Orlov wrote On State Credit (1833).
Russian economic thought of the mid-19th century was greatly influenced by the revolutionary democrats. V. G. Belinskii favored the abolition of serfdom and linked the Russia of the future to peasant revolution. A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, N. G. Chernyshevskii, and N. A. Dobroliubov were determined fighters for the abolition of serfdom. They regarded the elimination of landlords’ estates and the preservation of the Russian land commune as the necessary and sufficient condition for the realization of the idea of “peasant socialism.” They believed that by using the Russian communal form of landownership it would be possible to bypass capitalism and thus avoid the social contradictions inherent in capitalism. They saw their main task as the criticism of capitalism and the propagation of peasant socialism. Although Lenin thought highly of the antiserf-dom orientation of the revolutionary democrats’ economic ideas, he noted that the revolutionary democrats’ views on socialism and the transition to socialism were utopian.
The most outstanding theoretician among the revolutionary democrats was Chernyshevskii. He critically examined bourgeois political economy, its subject, and its method, and he formulated the tasks and subject matter of the economic “theory of the toilers.” The antiserfdom orientation of this theory was reflected in the profound analysis of serfdom in Russia and the justification of the struggle of the peasantry for the abolition of serfdom. Chernyshevskii provided a critique of capitalism and its economic categories, such as the division of labor under capitalism, productive labor, competition, the law of value, wage labor, and the law of distribution. He regarded the Peasant Reform of 1861 as predatory and saw it as ensuring the interests of the landlords. Chernyshevskii’s theories exerted enormous influence on the economic views of N. A. Serno-Solov’evich, D. I. Pisarev, V. V. Bervi-Flerovskii, A. N. Engel’gardt, and N. V. Shelgunov.
In the mid-19th century, E. Ladyzhenskii, G. Blank, N. Bezobrazov, and other proponents of serfdom among the dvorianstvo put forth their own economic ideas. They viewed peasant reform as a political screen, behind which nothing should actually change in the economic relations between the peasants and the landlords. In essence, the economic bases of the dvorianstvo were defended both by Slavophiles, such as A. S. Khomiakov, Iu. F. Samarin, the brothers I. S. Aksakov and K. S. Aksakov, and the brothers I. V. Kireevskii and P. V. Kireevskii, and Westernizers, such as B. N. Chicherin and K. D. Kavelin. The former advocated the preservation of the peasant land commune, whereas the latter called for its elimination. The Slavophiles saw in the land commune a reserve of cheap labor power for the landowners’ farms, whereas the Westernizers viewed the commune as an obstacle to the development of a capitalism in which the leading role was given to estate farming. V. A. Kokorev, D. N. Strukov, I. V. Vernadskii, and other ideologists of the Russian bourgeoisie put forth no radical economic demands, hoping that the autocracy would use its police to provide protection for the bourgeoisie’s interests in the face of a growing proletariat.
In the postreform period, economic thought reflected the contradictions between the capitalism developing in the country and the vestiges of serfdom. V. P. Meshcherskii, M. N. Kat-kov, K. P. Pobedonostsev, and other open supporters of outmoded serf relations sought to keep powerful political positions in the hands of the dvorianstvo, proposing to resolve economic problems exclusively in the interests of the landlord. In effect, A. I. Vasil’chikov, V. P. Bezobrazov, and other ideologists of the liberal dvorianstvo strove for the same thing, although they thought it necessary to take into account to some degree the new conditions that had arisen after the reform. Criticism of the vestiges of serfdom was considerably stepped up both by economic liberals, such as F. P. Skaldin, and by bourgeois scholars, such as Iu. E. Ianson, A. I. Chuprov, I. I. Ianzhul, and M. M. Kovalevskii, who undertook a serious attempt at an economic-statistical analysis. The value of the statistical material in works by these bourgeois scholars on the actual condition of Russia’s economy and the situation of the peasantry was noted by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
The Russian chemist and scientist D. I. Mendeleev devoted a great deal of attention to the problem of the development of Russia’s productive forces.
In the last third of the 19th century, the economic ideas of Populism came to be disseminated widely. Lenin saw two sides to Populism—a progressive, antiserfdom side and a reactionary side—since Populism denied the progressive character of the capitalist development of the country. The revolutionary Narodniki of the 1870’s and 1880’s groundlessly characterized the Russian peasant commune as the embryo of socialism. Lenin classified the theories put forth in the 1880’s and 1890’s by V. P. Vorontsov, I.I. Kablits, G. P. Sazonov, and S. N. Iuzhakov as, liberal Populist. The liberal Populists reflected the interests of the petit bourgeois—the commodity producer. Lenin characterized the Populist system of socioeconomic views on the whole as petit bourgeois socialism.
The pioneer of Marxist economic thought in Russia was G. V. Plekhanov. In Socialism and Political Struggle (1883), Our Differences (1885), and other works, he showed the groundlessness of the Narodniki’s assertions that the preconditions for the development of capitalism in Russia were missing and that the peasantry was the main force of the social movement. Plekhanov refused the Narodniki’s thesis that Russia could make the transition to socialism without first passing through capitalism. He established that capitalism was a reality in Russia of the 1880’s and that the proletariat was the decisive force in the struggle for socialism. He criticized the propositions of vulgar bourgeois political economy from a Marxist standpoint. At the same time, Plekhanov committed serious errors on a number of economic questions, and the compounding of these errors later led him to adopt Menshevik positions.
The struggle of the Russian Marxists against hostile currents of social thought grew more acute in the late 19th century, when P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovskii, S. N. Bulgakov, and other “legal Marxists” entered the social arena. The legal Marxists attempted to utilize individual theses of Marxism on the progressive nature of capitalism as compared to feudalism in the interests of the bourgeoisie and criticized Populism with the intent of justifying the bourgeois system.
An outstanding contribution to the development of Marxist political economy and Russian economic thought was made by Lenin. He proved groundless the economic views of the Narodniki, analyzed the economic nature of small-scale commodity production and the organic connection of small-scale commodity production with large-scale capital, and revealed the mechanism by which the internal market for capitalism is formed. He clarified the role of the external market, the social nature of the Russian rural commune, and the prospects for the commune’s development. In The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1896–99) and other works, Lenin described a landlords’ economy, Russia’s economic system, and the class structure of society, and he also defined the tendencies of the country’s economic development. In his economic works of the 1890’s, Lenin masterfully applied Marx’ economic theory to the specific conditions found in Russia. In his pre-October works, Lenin developed the teachings of Marxism on the subject and method of political economy, the partiinosf (party spirit) of political economy, the stages of capitalist development in industry, and capitalist reproduction and crises.
Lenin developed the Marxist theory of the agrarian question and the doctrine of the two paths of the capitalist development of agriculture. He also took up the question of the nationalization of land and the role played by nationalization in the development of the bourgeois democratic revolution into the socialist revolution. He substantiated the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks and provided a critique of the agrarian theory put forth by the opportunists of the Second International, as well as of the various landowner, bourgeois, and petit bourgeois agrarian programs in Russia. He developed the theory of the bourgeois democratic and socialist revolutions under the new historical conditions obtaining in the era of imperialism.
In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin dealt with new phenomena in the development of capitalism, revealed the economic essence of imperialism as monopoly capitalism, and formulated the main economic and political attributes of imperialism. Lenin showed the historical place of imperialism as the highest and final stage in the development of capitalism—the eve of socialist revolution. Having discovered the law of uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries in the era of imperialism, Lenin established the possibility that socialism may initially triumph in only a few capitalist countries, perhaps even a single country. Lenin’s works provide a critique of bourgeois, opportunist, and revisionist economic theories.
At the beginning of the 20th century, four methodological orientations (schools) were clearly delineated in Russian bourgeois economics: historical-ethical, social, psychological, and mathematical. Bourgeois scholars treated a broad range of economic problems from a standpoint of vulgar political economies, including questions of value, price and capital, wages and profits, money, credit, and finance. They developed agrarian theories and the agrarian programs of the bourgeois parties, treated questions of Russia’s industrial development, and constructed bourgeois conceptions of imperialism and socialism. The ideologists of the petite bourgeoisie and the Socialist Revolutionaries preached the theory of the capitalist development of agriculture, drafted the agrarian programs of the petit bourgeois parties, formulated an attitude toward imperialism, and created petit bourgeois theories of socialism. Taking Struve’s The Economy and Price (part 1, 1913; part 2, 1916) as an example of this current, Lenin showed the apologistic nature and profound crisis of bourgeois economics in Russia. In describing the petit bourgeois economic thought of 20th-century Russia, Lenin pointed out the increasing influence of bourgeois political economy on petit bourgeois economic thought.
The year 1917 signaled the beginning of a new stage in the development of Russian economic thought. Lenin’s works developed Marxism’s teachings concerning the inevitability of socialist revolution and the need to smash the bourgeois state machinery and form a state of a new type—a dictatorship of the proletariat. They treated the inevitability of a special transition period from capitalist society to socialist society, in which the former would be revolutionarily transformed into the latter, and also the question of socialism and communism as two successive stages, and phases of the communist socioeconomic formation. In the works written between February and October 1917, Lenin provided further proof of the inevitability of the development of the bourgeois democratic revolution into the socialist revolution and worked out the economic platform of the Bolsheviks in the socialist revolution. The platform provided for the confiscation of landowners’ lands; the nationalization of all land, banks, and large-scale industry; and the introduction of workers’ control and a monopoly on foreign trade.
In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (1918), “Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (1919), and other works, Lenin scientifically established the economic role and functions of a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and developed the principles, methods, and forms of socialist management. He advanced the idea and substantiated the necessity of a transition from the policy of “war communism” to the New Economic Policy (NEP). He studied the paths, forms, and methods of building the economy of socialism in the country; proved the need for the accelerated creation of large-scale heavy industry and the possibility and necessity of the socialist transformation of the small-scale and fragmented peasant economy through organization into cooperatives; and defined the necessity and tasks of the cultural revolution.
As he worked out a scientifically based program for the building of socialism, Lenin simultaneously laid the foundations for the political economy of socialism as a new division of Marxist-Leninist political economy in the broad sense of the term. His theoretical works contain the basic theses on the operation of objective economic laws under socialism, including the basic economic law of socialism, the law of the planned and proportional development of the national economy, and the law of distribution according to labor. They also contain the basic theses on the paths of creating the material and technical basis for socialism, the forms and methods of the socialist transformation of agriculture, and the principles and methods of directing the national economy. Lenin posed and resolved questions on the socialist organization of labor and labor remuneration; on the market, trade, and commodity-money relations; and on the role of money, credit, and finance in the building of socialism. He developed basic Marxist theses on the economy of communism and the paths of the economy’s construction. He further developed the idea advanced by Marx and Engels that backward countries could attain socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development if aided by proletarians of other countries who had won power.
In the transition period from capitalism to socialism, the main problems of economics concerned NEP, the planning of the national economy and the utilization of commodity-money relations, the creation of heavy industry in the country, and the collectivization of agriculture. The Marxist-Leninist economic theory of socialism was formed in irreconcilable struggle with bourgeois and petit bourgeois conceptions and the Trotskyist and right-opportunist distortions of science. In the 1920’s, discussions took place on the methodological questions of political economy, including the historic limits of political economy, the “regulator” of the economy in the transition period, abstract labor, and the subject matter and method of political economy.
Lenin’s teachings on the possibility, paths, and methods of building socialism in the USSR and the economic problems of the transition period were developed in the documents of the Communist Party and in the works of the economists of the RSFSR. The documents of the Communist Party creatively developed Lenin’s teachings on imperialism, state-monopoly capitalism, and the general crisis of capitalism.
In the mid-1930’s, when the transition period was complete and socialist society had essentially been constructed, in-depth study began on production relations under socialism and the economic laws of socialist society. Research delved more deeply into the methodology of political economy. The study of the political economy of socialism was introduced in higher educational institutions.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the science of economics studied the overall problems of the economy of developed socialism and the building of communism. Paramount importance was ascribed to raising the effectiveness of social production and the standard of living of the working people. Economists focused their attention on planning, material incentives, the practice of khozraschet (economic accounting), the structure of industry management, the effectiveness of capital investments and new technology, economic aspects of scientific and technological progress and price formation, and methodological questions of forecasting economic development and long-term planning.
The tasks of economic science in the RSFSR, like those of Soviet economics generally, are defined by the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU of 1967 On Measures for the Further Development of Social Sciences and the Enhancement of Their Role in Communist Construction and the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU of Dec. 1, 1971, On the Work of the Party Organization of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
During the 1960’s and early 1970’s, methods of mathematical economics were widely employed in economics and in the management of the national economy. Economists of the Russian Federation did a great deal of work on the distribution of productive forces throughout the country’s economic regions, the overall development of productive forces, the planning of the national economy, agrarian theory, and the economics of agriculture.
Studies were made of the general features of the economic development of the countries of the socialist commonwealth, socialist economic integration, and the external economic relations of the socialist countries with the countries of the capitalist world and the developing states.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism served as the basis for the study of the general features of capitalist reproduction in the modern stage, economic cycles and crises, state-monopoly capitalism, and the economic and political position of individual capitalist countries. Research was also done on the position of the proletariat and the peasantry in the capitalist world, class struggle and the national liberation movements in the modern stage, economic problems of the developing countries, and economic aspects of the competitions of the two world systems.
Scholars of the RSFSR have made great contributions in the study of the history of economic thought; the critique of bourgeois, opportunist, and revisionist economic theories; the history of the development of the economy of prerevolutionary Russia and the construction of the socialist economy; the economics of industry, finance, and credit; and statistics.
Economic research in the RSFSR is centered at numerous institutes of nationwide significance. The major institutes are the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (founded in 1936), the Institute of the World Economy and International Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1956), and the Scientific Research Institute of Economics of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1955).


Istoriia russkoi ekonomicheskoi mysli, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1955–60.
Tsagolov, N. A. Ocherki russkoi economicheskoi mysli perioda padeniia krepostnogo prava. Moscow, 1956.
JURISPRUDENCE. The first legal works in Russia date to the era of the Kievan state. In the treaties drawn up between Kievan Rus’ and Byzantium in 911, 944, and 971, a number of principles of international private law were formulated. A systematized, detailed treatment of the most important institutions of criminal and civil law was given in the code known as the Russkaia Pravda. Problems of legal science were also taken up in a number of literary works dating from this period, such as Ilarion’s Discourse on Law and Grace (11th century) and the Primary Chronicle (early 12th century). The successive codifications of Russian law carried out in the 15th through 17th centuries, including the sudebniki (law codes) of 1497 and 1550 and Aleksei Mikhailovich’s Ulozhenie (Law Code) of 1649, attest to the growth of legal knowledge and the improvement of legal technique.
Legal thought developed considerably under Peter I, with major works written by F. Prokopovich and V. N. Tatishchev. Peter organized courses for the study of jurisprudence under the auspices of the collegia. Beginning in 1732, jurisprudence was taught as an independent discipline at the Corps of Cadets, and in 1737 systematic instruction for the youth of the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry) in “state laws and rights” was introduced under the auspices of the Senate, the collegia, and the chancelleries.
In 1755 studies were begun in the law faculty of Moscow University. The first Russian professor of law was S. E. Desni-tskii, who wrote a number of original works on the theory of the state and law and on criminal law. In 1777 his student A. A. Ar-tem’ev published A Short Outline of Roman and Russian Law, Showing the Content of Both, Together With Their Histories. From 1811 to 1818, Z. A. Goriushkin, another student of Des-nitskii’s, published the extensive Guide to the Knowledge of the Russian Legal Art in four volumes. Ia. P. Kozel’skii also devoted a good deal of study to jurisprudence.
The development of legal science was greatly influenced by A. N. Radishchev, who authored a number of specialized legal works, including On the Statute, An Essay on Legislation, and A Draft for the Division of the Russian Code.
A significant contribution to the development of legal thought was made by the Decembrists, especially P. I. Pestel’, who drafted the first republican constitution for Russia, called Russkaia Pravda. M. M. Speranskii exerted a perceptible influence on the development of Russian jurisprudence. In the first period of his activity, he criticized the social and state system of Russia in a number of memorandums and demanded the promulgation of “fundamental laws.” Speranskii organized work to compile The Collected Laws of the Russian Empire and The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.
In the early 19th century, the doctrine of natural law strongly influenced Russia’s legal thought. This influence is seen particularly in Natural Law (1818–20), a work by the outstanding jurist A. P. Kunitsyn. During the reactionary reign of Nicholas I, official jurisprudence, including instruction in law in the universities, was oriented to the ideas of the conservative historical school of law, and this was reflected in the nature of the codification undertaken by Speranskii.
By the 1860’s, Russian legal literature had reached a high level of development and embraced all the main branches of law. Official jurisprudence was opposed by the sociopolitical views of the revolutionary democrats V. G. Belinskii, A. I. Her-zen, N. P. Ogarev, N. G. Chernyshevskii, and N. A. Dobroliu-bov, who sharply criticized the existing state and law and called for the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democracy. Their revolutionary views aided the growth of political consciousness among the advanced strata of Russian society.
In the preparation of the Judicial Reform of 1864, S. I. Za-rudnyi served as the chief author of the statutes; the statutes attest to the high level of legal science. Zarudnyi also published a number of works on comparative legal science.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were a number of trends in the theory of law. G. F. Shershenevich and N. M. Korkunov were partisans of legal positivism. S. A. Muromtsev was the precursor of the sociological trend in law, which later became very popular in the West. Neo-Kantian currents in law were reflected in the works of B. A. Kistiakovskii, P. I. Novgo-rodtsev, and E. N. Trubetskoi. L. I. Petrazhitskii’s psychological theory of law exerted a profound influence on the development of legal thought in many countries.
In the area of the history of political doctrines, important contributions were made by Novgorodtsev and also by B. N. Chicherin, who between 1869 and 1902 published the extensive, five-part History of Political Doctrines. State law was studied by A. D. Gradovskii, who used the comparative method as the basis for the first general course of state law in European literature, and Korkunov, who wrote a two-volume course of Russian state law.
M. F. Vladimirskii-Budanov wrote a major history of the state and law up to the early 20th century, entitled A Survey of the History of Russian Law (fascs. 1–2, 1886). N. P. Pavlov-Sil’-vanskii was the author of Feudalism in Old Rus’ (1907), an important reader on the history of Russian law. A significant contribution to legal science was made by M. M. Kovalevskii, who studied the origin of the commune by drawing on a great deal of ethnologic material; his works were received positively by En-gels. P. G. Vinogradov was an outstanding historian of law.
During this period, Iu. S. Gambarov, I. A. Pokrovskii, and Shershenevich helped create an extensive literature on civil and commercial law. Best known among the works written on criminal law were those by N. S. Tagantsev. Important works were written by V. A. Nezabitovskii, D. I. Kachenovskii, and L. A. Komarovskii, Russian specialists on international law. Between 1874 and 1906, F. F. Martens published A Collection of Treaties and Conventions Concluded by Russia With Foreign Powers in 15 volumes. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Russian legal science did not lag behind the science of the Western European countries, even though it had emerged at a considerably later date. In sociopolitical terms, 20th-century Russian jurisprudence had on the whole a bourgeois-liberal orientation, and the most eminent legal scholars were prominent figures in the Constitutional Democratic Party.
By the time of the October Revolution of 1917, Marxist-Leninist theory had provided a principled resolution of the main problems of the state and law. The works of Marx, Engels and Lenin contained a genuinely scientific and materialist conception of the state and law, thus making possible the formation of a new legal science, radically different from the bourgeois science of the state and bourgeois legal science.
As early as the first years after the Great October Revolution, the Marxist conception of the problems of the state and law served as the basis for a new, Soviet constitution—the RSFSR Constitution of 1918. The constitution embodied Leninist principles concerning the unity of state power, the self-determination of nations, and the soviets as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Soviet theory of state law was further developed in the RSFSR Constitutions of 1924 and 1937. A scientifically grounded judicial system was created that provided for the participation of the working people in the administration of justice, and special bodies were formed to supervise the observance of legality by all organizations and citizens. During the 1920’s, law codes were adopted in all branches of the law.
During the first years of Soviet power, legal science sought chiefly to develop the theoretical foundations of the new, socialist state system, to demonstrate how the law is conditioned by material and economic factors, to reveal the class essence of the law, and to criticize bourgeois legal ideology. There was much discussion about the definition of Soviet law. During these years, works on state law were published by V. N. Durdenev-skii, A. M. Turubiner, and G. S. Gurvich. A. I. Elistratov wrote a number of works on administrative law, and A. M. Reisner, P. I. Stućka, E. B. Paŝukãnis, and N. V. Krylenko wrote on the general theory of law. The civil, criminal, labor, and other branches of Soviet law were studied by V. A. Krasnokutskii, A. A. Piontkovskii, D. M. Genkin, and M. N. Gernet.
A very great role in the development of legal science was played by two decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU: On Measures for the Further Development of Legal Science and the Improvement of Legal Education in the Country (1964) and On Measures for the Further Development of Social Sciences and the Enhancement of Their Role in Communist Construction (1967). These decrees are serving as the basis for a serious examination of the major theoretical problems of state and legal construction: the development of socialist democracy, the organization and activity of the soviets of people’s deputies, the scientific foundations of state administration, the legal regulation of economic activity and social relations, the legal status of the individual and the strengthening of legality and law and order, legal aspects of socialist economic integration, and the perfecting of Soviet legislation. Scholars and specialists on international law are doing a great deal of work in the study and elaboration of various legal problems associated with the international activity of the USSR as the country carries out the program of peace put forth at the Twenty-fourth Congress of the CPSU. Extensive research is being conducted on the fight against crime, and much attention is being devoted to the struggle against bourgeois and revisionist legal ideology.
Scholar-jurists of the RSFSR have taken an active part in working out the Basic Principles of Legislation of the USSR for various branches of the law, the law codes of the RSFSR, and other major legislative acts.
The first scientific research institute of law in the RSFSR was the Institute of Soviet Construction, established in 1925 to replace the Section of Soviet Construction of the Communist Academy; in 1936 it became the Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The RSFSR has a number of scientific research institutes of law, including institutes to study Soviet legislation, to investigate the causes of crime and to develop measures to prevent it, and to develop expertise in criminal law. There are various subdepartments within the law departments of Moscow State University. Leningrad State University, the University of Kazan, and other universities. The Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other higher educational institutions of law also do work in the area of legal science.
LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISM. Literary theory and criticism, which in Russia were always closely linked to the historical-literary process and the societal life of the country, had no independent significance in the early stages. In the 17th and 18th centuries, various works appeared: school texts, books of poetics and rhetoric (by F. Prokopovich and others), and examples of “auxiliary” genres, including bibliographic inventories and lists of books. Biographical dictionaries of writers appeared, such as N. I. Novikov’s Attempt at a Historical Dictionary of Russian Writers (1772). Knowledge about the theory of literature and about stylistics was accumulated in treatises on rhetoric. Theoretical interpretation of art per se was initially linked to a considerable degree with consideration of the problems of versification, as in the treatises of M. V. Lomonosov, V. K. Trediakovskii, and A. P. Sumarokov. The Russian Academy was established in the early 1780’s and transformed in the 19th century into the Division of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. At the beginning of the 19th century, the formation of historical conceptions of literature and language proceeded in a struggle against normative-hierarchical methodology, as can be seen from the polemics of N. M. Karamzin and A. S. Shishkov. Karamzin was the first in Russia to have a regular section in a journal devoted to criticism and bibliographies.
The foundations of accurate linguistic and paleographic study were laid by A. Kh. Vostokov, and the study of Russian antiquities was begun by A. L. Schlözer. The first writings on theoretical questions were normative and speculative in nature, such as A. I. Galich’s An Essay at a Science of the Beautiful (1825). The aesthetic problems of literary theory and criticism were further developed in works with a so-called philosophical orientation by D. V. Venevitinov, V. F. Odoevskii, and N. I. Nadezhdin.
Literary criticism, which V. G. Belinskii defined as “aesthetics in motion,” developed rapidly in the first third of the 19th century. The need for an interpretation of contemporary literature caused the genre of the critical survey to emerge, with A. A. Bestuzhev, I. V. Kireevskii, and Belinskii among the first practitioners. Methodological and theoretical problems of literary history were examined in depth in journals. In this regard, literary criticism went far beyond literature in raising pointed sociophilosophic questions. The critical work of A. S. Pushkin, A. I. Herzen, N. V. Gogol, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy, and other writers was very important in the formation and development of literary theory and criticism. Worthy of particular mention is Pushkin’s notion of the paramount role of the “mode of historical exposition.” This was the seed from which the methodological principles of the science of literature subsequently developed.
Along with works on theory, the first works of literary history were created—the “instructional books,” “essays,” and “studies” of N. I. Grech, N. A. Polevoi, S. P. Shevyrev, and A. V. Nikitenko; these works were empirical in nature.
Belinskii’s works were characterized by a decided turn toward issues of the times and the national features of literature. Having advanced the idea of an accelerated development of Russian literature, Belinskii examined the relationship of Russian literature to other national literatures and noted the periods and internal logic of the development of Russian literature. He formulated the fundamentals of realistic art and created a system of theoretical views that led to a materialistic explanation of literature. Reinterpreting the principle of the unity of content and form as developed in the aesthetics of G. Hegel, Belinskii established the thesis of the “spirit of art” and its connection to the “spirit of societal life.” Belinskii’s articles on Pushkin were a model of the combination of the aesthetic, historical, and critical approaches to art.
Continuing what Belinskii had done, N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov advocated the principles of historicism, the popular nature of art, and realism. New conceptions developed from sharp ideological clashes and critical discussions. Chernyshevskii and Dobroliubov advanced to the fore problems of the relationship of art to reality and the essence of the model and social function of the aesthetic ideal. A materialist conception of art and real criticism was formulated in the aesthetics of the revolutionary democrats. Chernyshevskii’s Studies in the Gogolian Period of Russian Literature was the next step in the creation of the historical conception of the development of literature. On the whole, however, the principle of historicism was still subordinated to views of literature that were derived from the Enlightenment. At times, this led from historicism to one-sided and schematic judgments; an extreme example is the criticism of D. I. Pisarev, as can be seen from the article “Pushkin and Belinskii.”
Criticizing Enlightenment methodology, A. A. Grigor’ev, N. N. Strakhov, and, to some extent, Dostoevsky sought to resolve the problems of historicism and the national distinctiveness of Russian literature from the standpoint of Slavophilism and pochvennichestvo (“grass-roots movement”).
In the second half of the 19th century, the deductive approach to literature gave way in large measure to inductive methods, and more definite directions in scientific research began to take shape. The science of literature turned from a general conception of historicism to the concrete study of the literary process. F. I. Buslaev undertook an intensive study of Russian folklore, Old Russian literature, and the interaction between the two. A. A. Shakhmatov contributed to historical criticism and textology. Much was done in the study of monuments of Old Russian literature, the chronicles, the Russkaia Pravda, and The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. Historical materials were published extensively in the journals Russkii arkhiv (Russian Archive) and Russkaia starina (Russian Antiquity).
In the late 19th century, there were three schools of literary theory and criticism in Russia: the cultural history school of N. S. Tikhonravov and A. N. Pypin, the mythological school of Buslaev and A. N. Afanas’ev, and the comparative history school of A. N. Veselovskii. N. A. Kotliarevskii and D. N. Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii studied the psychology and sociology of creativity. A. A. Potebnia and V. N. Peretts investigated the artistic nature of literature, the place literature occupied among other forms of thought, and problems of poetics, style, and language.
These schools, which did much to develop scientific methods, were isolated from the contemporary literary process. Still retaining ideas of positivism, Pypin and other representatives of the cultural history school looked for the psychology of the people in the history of literature. The study of the “filiation of ideas” by partisans of the comparative history school sometimes led to superficial comparativism, and the laws of development of literature were reduced to evolutionism.
By the early 20th century, as the social revolutionary movement grew, a polarization and delimitation of scholarly views was taking place. On the one hand, idealist conceptions were being formed by V. S. Solov’ev, D. S. Merezhkovskii, V. V. Rozanov, and Viach. I. Ivanov. On the other hand, a social approach to art was being developed and a Marxist orientation in literary theory and criticism was emerging, as could be seen in the works of G. V. Plekhanov, A. V. Lunacharskii, and V. V. Vorovskii. The works of Lenin developed the idea of the partiinosf (party spirit) of literature, studied the literary process in connection with the liberation movement (article on Herzen), and examined the literary process with consideration of the ideological and artistic content of a work (articles on L. N. Tolstoy). On the basis of Marxist methodology, new possibilities emerged for understanding the historical, social, and aesthetic aspects of literary phenomena. The doctrine of the dialectical unity of form and content became a matter of principle. A very great role in the formation of social culture was played by Lenin’s judgment on classic Russian literature and the legacy of the classic writers.
After the October Revolution of 1917, mass printings of classic literature were begun, textological and annotating work was initiated, and the principles of textual criticism were developed. The unique publication Literaturnoe nasledstvo (Literary Heritage) was established to publish materials and research on Russian and Western European literature and aesthetic works of the classic Marxist writers; by the end of 1975 about 90 volumes had been issued. The series Literaturnye pamiatniki (Literary Monuments) also helped publish texts that had not been readily available. Complete academy collections of the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Belinskii, Turgenev, Herzen, and Mayakovsky have been published, and works by Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, and M. Gorky are being published.
Marxist literary theory and criticism, which had made themselves known even in the prerevolutionary period through the works of Lunacharskii, P. I. Lebedev-Polianskii, V. M. Friche, P. N. Sakulin, and N. K. Piksanov, studied the social aspects of artistic creativity and problems of creative method, world view, and methodology. In addition, research was done on poetics, literary style, and the language of literature. The direct opposition of the formalist and socially oriented approaches to the study of literature had a telling effect in the 1920’s, leading to one-sided interpretations of literature by members of the Society for the Study of Poetic Language on the one hand and vulgar sociologism on the other.
In 1932, on the initiative of M. Gorky, the Institute of World Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR was created. The Institute of Russian Literature (the Pushkin House) stepped up its activity. The works of academicians A. S. Orlov, N. I. Konrad, V. F. Shishmarev, V. V. Vinogradov, V. M. Zhir-munskii, M. P. Alekseev, D. S. Likhachev, and M. B. Khrap-chenko were important for the development of the Soviet science of literature.
Soviet literary theory and criticism, which are closely linked to aesthetics, philosophy, sociology, history, and psychology, concentrate on the study of the relationship between art and reality and the methodology of historical and social analysis and comprehensively study artistic creativity. A central place is occupied by the development of such categories as the partiinosf and popular nature of literature, creative method, and especially the method of socialist realism. New interpretations are being offered for the works of Pushkin, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, the revolutionary democrats, and the classic writers of foreign literature and multinational Soviet literature. The bridging of the gap in the study of ideological content and artistic form has led to the creation of important works on the history and theory of literature.
In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, discussions took place on realism and problems of humanism in literature. A number of all-Union conferences were held on current problems of socialist realism. The principle of historicism in the resolution of theoretical problems and problems of the history of literature has been accorded paramount importance. A special place in contemporary literary theory and criticism is occupied by works of the semantic and structuralist orientations, which have provided definite results in folklore and the study of old texts.
The decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU of 1972 On Literary and Art Criticism, which outlined measures to stir critical thought to greater activity and defined the role of critical thought in the development of multinational Soviet literature, contributed to the noticeable enlivening of literary theory and criticism in the early 1970’s.


Marx, K., and F. Engels. Ob iskusstve, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1967.
Lenin, V. I. O literature i iskusstve, 4th ed. Moscow, 1969.
Veselovskii, A. N. “O metode i zadachakh istorii literatury kak nauki.” In his book Istoricheskaia poetika. Leningrad, 1940.
Teoriia literatury: Osnovnye problemy v istoricheskom osveshchenii [vols. 1–3]. Moscow, 1962–65.
Timofeev, L. I. Osnovy teorii literatury, 4th ed. Moscow, 1971.
Sovetskoe literaturovedenie i kritika: Russkaia sovetskaia literatura (obshchie raboty). Knigi i stat’i 1917–1962 gg: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow, 1966. [Book 2]: Knigi i stat’i 1963–1967 gg. Moscow, 1970.
LINGUISTICS. The first Slavic grammars were written in the late 16th and early 17th centuries by L. Zizanii (1596) and M. G. Smotritskii (1619). These were the sole guides to usage of the Russian language up to the middle of the 18th century. The first grammar of the Russian language, by V. E. Adodurov, appeared in manuscript in 1731 and was translated into Swedish by M. Groening in 1750.
The founder of Russian scientific linguistics was M. V. Lomonosov, who created the foundations of Russian scientific grammar and terminology, advanced the theory of three styles in the Russian literary language, and proposed for the first time in Russia the comparative-historical study of languages. In the second half of the 18th century, scholars began actively studying the Russian language. Russian grammars by N. G. Kurga-nov (1769) and A. A. Barsov (1773) and A Russian Grammar, Written by the Russian Academy (1802) reflected the state of the Russian literary language and that of the everyday popular language as spoken by various social groups and in various geographic areas. In syntax, the concept of word combination (slovosochetanie) and the concept of the sentence came to be distinguished. Dictionaries of various types were compiled in the late 18th century, including defining dictionaries, such as The Dictionary of the Russian Academy (1878–79 and 1806–22), and multilingual dictionaries.
Interest in the ideas of universal grammar arose in the early 19th century. This is reflected especially in works by I. S. Rizhskii, I. Ornatovskii, and I. F. Timkovskii, which also contain information on the historical development of Russian, treat the relationship of Russian to Greek, Latin, and German, and classify the parts of speech. L. G. Iakob’s A Course in Philosophy for Gymnasiums of the Russian Empire: Part Two, Containing an Outline of Universal Grammar (1812) defined language as a system of signs for the expression of thoughts and contained observations on the form of language.
The principle of the historical study of language outlined by Lomonosov was developed by A. Kh. Vostokov, who laid the foundations of comparative Slavic linguistics in Russia. At the same time that R. Rask, F. Bopp, and J. Grimm were doing work on comparative-historical linguistics to establish phonetic correspondences between consonants in the Germanic languages, Vostokov clarified the regular correspondences of vowels in Russian and other Slavic languages, proposed a reconstruction of the proto-Slavic language based on comparison of the surviving Slavic dialects, discovered the existence of nasal vowels in proto-Slavic, and established the predominance of the two-member sentence structure in Russian.
In the period from 1830 to 1880, general theoretical problems were raised and the principles of the comparative-historical method were established. G. P. Pavskii and I.I. Davydov compared Russian to other Indo-European languages, including cognate Slavic languages, and N. I. Grech proposed the concept of viewing language in its contemporary and historical aspects. The first philosophic interpretation of the problems of language in Russian linguistics was provided, in summary form, by K. P. Zelenetskii in The System and Content of the Philosophic Study of Language, With Application to the Russian Language (1841). In seeking to explain the diversity of languages, Zelenetskii distinguished between external causes, such as the historical life of a people and characteristics of soil and climate, and internal causes, such as different perceptions of the categories of time and place and the reflection of these categories in language. Various linguists expressed ideas concerning the link between language and thought.
The historical grammar of Russian became a separate scientific discipline. Research continued on the historical study of Russian, including phonetics, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Work was done comparing Russian not only with the classical Indo-European languages, but also with Turkish, Arabic, Chinese, and other languages. I. I. Sreznevskii, in developing the ideas of Vostokov, outlined a program and formulated the objective for the comparative-historical study of the Russian language; work would entail a study of the vocabulary and grammar of ancient texts, a description of dialects and subdia-lects, a scientific analysis of Russian and the language used by writers, and a comparison of Russian with the other Slavic languages. It was Sreznevskii who founded the field of linguistic geography in Russian language study, painstakingly describing dialects and studying the geographic distribution of phonetic and grammatical features of Russian.
Many of Sreznevskii’s ideas were developed by F. I. Buslaev, who advanced a theory on the link between the history of a language and the history of a people, advocated a historical study of the Russian language based on comparative research, and spoke of the need to analyze dialects. Buslaev’s works long determined the content of future works on the comparative-historical study of Russian. The works of F. E. Korsh contributed to the emergence of the comparative-typological method of studying syntactic phenomena in cognate and noncognate languages.
In the area of the general theory of language, A. A. Potebnia developed the psychological orientation, which existed simultaneously in European linguistics as well. He studied philosophic problems connected with language and used material provided by the Russian language to elaborate the principle of the historical mutability of syntactic categories.
A major role in developing the philosophy of language was also played by K. S. Aksakov, who noted that a word represents the unity of two aspects—the external and the internal, the material and the ideal. Aksakov viewed language both dynamically and statically, that is, both with and without consideration of historical development.
It was a tradition of Russian linguistics to combine the elaboration of theoretical problems with lexicographic work. Examples are seen in A Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian, Compiled by the Second Division of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (1847), A Dictionary of Church Slavonic by Vostokov (1858–61), and A Defining Dictionary of the Living Russian Language by V. I. Dal’ (1863–66).
The formation of theoretical linguistics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was greatly influenced by the Moscow and Kazan linguistic schools, which were founded by F. F. Fortunatov and I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Fortunatov’s theory of general linguistics advanced the historical approach to language phenomena. It was characterized by a complex, psychologically based interaction of the comparative-historical conception and the general theory of language. Fortunatov made a number of original contributions to linguistics of the late 19th century: he demonstrated that the form of a word combination could be ascertained by opposing stem and affix, distinguished between basic and formal units of language, formulated the concept of the zero form in inflection, and pointed to the need to take into account the existence of systemic relationships between grammatical forms in a language. He also formulated the classic theory of Common Slavic and Common Indo-European stress.
Fortunatov’s ideas were developed by A. A. Shakhmatov and M. M. Pokrovskii. Shakhmatov broadened and extended the study of the history of the Russian language as related to the history of the people and for the first time created a general picture of the origin of Russian and its dialects as related to the general problem of the origin of all the Slavic peoples and the Eastern Slavs in particular. He did research on the phonetic structure of Russian and the types of simple sentences. In the area of the philosophy of language, he advanced the concept of psychological communication—the special act of thought in which the joining of psychological representations take place. Pokrovskii originated comparative-historical semantics and studied vocabulary in its systemic organization.
Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevskii, V. A. Bogorodit-skii, and other members of the Kazan school of linguistics played a major part in elaborating the general theoretical problems underlying modern linguistic research. Long before F. de Saussure, Baudouin de Courtenay suggested the need to distinguish language from speech and synchrony from diachrony, understanding language to be a system in which parts are linked together by relationships of meaning, form, sound, and so forth. Within the system of language he distinguished phonetic, morphological, and syntactic subsystems (levels). Baudouin de Courtenay was the first person in Russian linguistics to develop the idea of the phoneme as a phonetic concept permanently existing in the psyche. Many of his conceptions have been used in developing contemporary phonology. Krushev-skii’s teachings on the associative links of words anticipated de Saussure’s ideas on associative and syntagmatic relationships in language structure.
The law established by Krushevskii on the inverse ratio between the sphere of usage of a word and the scope of its meaning is a basic law in the modern theory of information. Bogoro-ditskii developed the idea of morphological processes in language, having defined the essence of analogy, differentiation, de-etymologization, and metanalysis. In the area of comparative-historical linguistics, he suggested not re-creating the Indo-European protolanguage but determining the chronological succession of language phenomena from the initial period to the latest one. The merit of the Kazan linguistic school lay in raising the major general methodological problems of linguistics. Research into various aspects of the Russian language was continued in the late 19th century by Fortunatov, Shakhmatov, A. I. Sobolevskii, and R. F. Brandt.
In the first half of the 18th century, research was begun on the languages of the peoples inhabiting Russia. The study of Turkic languages and literatures involved investigation of the phonetic and grammatical structure of the Turkic languages, the development of linguistic geography and dialectology, and the study of runic texts; scholars included O. N. Böhtlingk, V. V. Radlov, and K. G. Zaleman.
In the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, O. M. Bodianskii, V. I. Grigorovich, Brandt, A. A. Kochu-binskii, and other scholars continued research on the Slavic languages. Scholars also studied the relationship between Russian and the other Slavic languages and worked to describe the Slavic languages as a whole.
Foundations were laid for the study of the Romance and Germanic languages by I. V. Tsvetaev, F. A. Braun, and others. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, research was done on all aspects of the Armenian language by K. P. Patkanov (Patkani-an), A. I. Tomson, and N. Ia. Marr. Karvelian, Adygei, Dagestan, and other Caucasian languages were thoroughly treated in works by M. I. Brosse, P. K. Uslar, and Marr. Among the Russians who studied the Finno-Ugric languages was F. I. Vide-man. M. A. Castrén comprehensively studied the languages of Northern Europe and Siberia, and A. J. Sjögren compiled a grammar and dictionary of the Livonian language. Research was conducted in Iranian studies by Zaleman, V. A. Zhukov-skii, and V. F. Miller.
The first descriptions of Sanskrit in Russia date to the early 19th century. The works of G. S. Lebedev on the languages and culture of India attempted to unite the European and Indian grammatical traditions. Other scholars of Sanskrit included P. Ia. Petrov, who studied Sanskrit, Bengali, Hindustani, and Marathi; I. P. Minaev; and Fortunatov. Böhtlingk compiled The Great Sanskrit Dictionary and The Small Sanskrit Dictionary, containing seven volumes each and published in 1855–75 and 1879–89, respectively.
The phonetics and morphology of the Baltic languages were studied by Fortunatov and G. K. Ul’ianov. In the study of the Mongolian language, important contributions were made by A. V. Igumnov, N. Ia. Bichurin (Iakinf), and B. Ia. Vladimir-tsov. Bichurin and V. P. Vasil’ev contributed to the development of Chinese studies. Research was also done on the Korean and Japanese languages. Much material was collected on Paleo-Asiatic, Eskimo, and North American languages by I. E. Veniaminov, V. G. Bogoraz, and V. I. Iokhel’son.
Russian linguistics of the 19th century made important strides in the study of Old Indie Egyptian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Babylonian, and Urartian and in the treatment of general problems in Semitics; notable work was done by P. K. Kokovtsev. V. S. Golenishchev enriched Assyriology with sources for the study of the Assyrian language and used data from the grammars of Babylonian and Assyrian to study the Egyptian language. M. V. Nikol’skii focused attention on the improvements that the Urartians introduced to the Assyro-Babylonian system of writing. The studies of B. A. Turaev were devoted to the analysis of Coptic manuscripts and Abyssinian chronicles. Russian Arabic studies was represented by the works of V. R. Rozen and I. Iu. Krachkovskii. The Austro-Oceanic languages were studied by N. N. Miklukho-Maklai, who described the Papuan languages. V. V. Iunker studied African languages.
The study of languages and the training of linguistic specialists in Russia were essentially concentrated at the Academy of Sciences, the universities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Kazan, the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages, the Asian Museum, and the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography.
The theory of Soviet linguistics was a continuation of the traditions of the linguistics of the 19th and early 20th centuries. After the Great October Socialist Revolution, the theoretical base of research changed fundamentally and the range of research broadened. Intensive research is now being done on problems of the essential characteristics of language and on the relationship between language and various thought processes. The specific characteristics of linguistic signs and the nature of the word and concept are being analyzed. The theory of the linguistic norm is being developed, and research is being done on the nature and laws of development of the literary language.
Questions of the topological classification of languages are being resolved through the use of extensive factual material. Linguists are developing the concept of a semantic-syntactic typology based on the correlation of logic and grammar and the notion of conceptual categories and categories of language. The theory of the internal structure of language is being developed on the basis of semiotic, hierarchical, and general systemic conceptions and conceptions involving the notion of levels.
Grammatical theory is being actively developed. Historical and normative grammars are being compiled not only for Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and other languages with ancient written traditions but also for languages that only recently have acquired a written form, such as Nanai, Nivkh, Yukaghir, and Koriak.
Great strides have been made by comparative-historical linguistics. Methodologies have been developed for internal reconstruction, areal linguistics, and periodization of the original state of protolanguages. A distinguishing feature of Soviet linguistic theory is the raising and examination of problems connected with sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, paralinguistics, and the theory of bilingualism as a form of the functioning and development of language.
Intensive work has been done in lexicography. Published works include A Defining Dictionary of the Russian Language (1934–40), edited by D. N. Ushakov, and the 17-volume Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Literary Language (1948–65). Bilingual lexicography is developing, with dictionaries being compiled for Russian and the various national languages of the Soviet Union.
Comprehensive works have been written on the dialectology of the languages of the peoples of the USSR, and dialectologi-cal atlases are being published for Russian folk dialects of the central regions, the Byelorussian language, and Ukrainian folk dialects of the Transcarpathian region. Work is under way to compile a pan-Turkic dialectological atlas, and dialectological dictionaries are being published for Bashkir, Uighur, Kazakh, Uzbek, and Azerbaijani.
In Russian philology, the laws of development of the Russian language are being studied, and research is being done on lexicology, grammar, stylistics, and phraseology. The study of the Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Iranian, and Turkic languages is developing intensively. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, scholars began actively studying language with the aid of concepts from mathematical logic, statistics, and semiotics. New methodological problems arose in connection with the emergence of computer linguistics, the purview of which includes experimental phonetics, teaching machines, the use of computers for automatic translation, the automation of linguistic work, and the creation of information retrieval systems.
The main linguistics institutions of the RSFSR are found in the system of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and include the Institutes of the Russian language, the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies, and the Institute of Linguistics. Scientific work on the Russian language is conducted by philology departments at universities and pedagogical institutes.


Bulich, S. K. Ocherk istorii iazykoznaniia v Rossii, vol. 1(13 fascs., 1825). St. Petersburg, 1904.
Vinogradov, V. V. “Russkaia nauka o russkom literaturnom iazyke.” Uch. zap. MGU, 1946, issue 106, vol. 3, book 1.
Krachkovskii, I. Iu. Ocherki po istorii russkoi arabistiki. Moscow, 1950.
Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniia, collections 1–6. Moscow, 1953–63.
Bibliograficheskii ukazateV literatury po russkomu iazykoznaniiu s 1825 po 1888, fascs. 1–8. Moscow, 1954–59.
Chemodanov, N. S. Sravnitel’noe iazykoznanie v Rossii. Moscow, 1956.
Sovetskoe iazykoznanie za 50 let. Moscow, 1967.
Berezin, F. M. Ocherki po istorii iazykoznaniia v Rossii (konets 19-nachalo 20 v.). Moscow, 1968.
Berezin, F. M. Istoriia lingvisticheskikh uchenii. Moscow, 1975.
Kononov, A. N. Istoriia izucheniia tiurkskikh iazykov v Rossii: Dook-tiabr’skii period. Leningrad, 1972.
Scientific institutions. In 1974 there were about 3,000 scientific institutions (including higher educational institutions) in the RSFSR, a figure that includes more than 1,670 scientific research institutes, together with branches and divisions. In 1940 the corresponding figures were 1,318 and 447; in 1965, 2,660 and 1,274; and in 1970, 2,862 and 1,504. In 1975 the number of scientific workers exceeded 804,000, which represents 68.8 percent of all scientific workers in the USSR. This compares with 62,000 scientific workers in 1940, 111,700 in 1950, 242,900 in 1960, 457,500 in 1965, and 631,100 in 1970. In 1974 among the scientific workers of the republic there were about 22,000 doctors of science and more than 201,000 candidates of science. In 1950 the corresponding figures were 6,200 and 32,400; in 1960, 7,900 and 67,100; and in 1970, 16,100 and 145,100.
The scientific research institutes and scientific centers of the RSFSR work in close contact with the scientists of the other Union republics. Many of the scientific research institutes and scientific centers in the republic are major institutions in the development of special branches of science. During the years of Soviet power, national scientific specialists have been trained in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR, and numerous scientific institutions have been formed. Scientists from the RSFSR participate actively in the work of international scientific organizations, scientific congresses, and conferences, both in the USSR and abroad. Moscow, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, and other cities in the republic have become prominent centers for international scientific contacts.


Lenin i sovremennaia nauka, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1970.
Nauka Soiuza SSR. Moscow, 1972.
Organizatsiia nauki v pervye gody Sovetskoi vlasti, 1917–1925. Leningrad, 1968.
Organizatsiia sovetskoi nauki v 1926–1932 gg. Leningrad, 1974.
Osnovnye printsipy i obshchie problemy upravleniia naukoi. Moscow, 1973.
Esakov, V. D. Sovetskaia nauka v gody pervoipiatiletki. Moscow, 1971.
Bastrakova, M. S. Stanovlenie sovetskoi sistemy organizatsii nauki. Moscow, 1973.

Centers for the writing of manuscript books existed for many years in ancient Rus’. In 1056 and 1057 the scribe Grigorii wrote the Ostromir Gospel for Ostromir, the posadnik (highest official) of Novgorod. This work is the oldest dated Russian manuscript book in existence. From the 11th through 15th centuries manuscript centers were established in Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, Riazan’, and Smolensk, as well as in the St. Sergius Trinity, Solovetskii, Joseph of Volokolamsk, and Kirill-Belo-zersk monasteries. The origins of Russian periodicals can be traced back to manuscript newspapers, which were called Vestovye pis’ma or Kuranty; these manuscript newspapers were first printed in 1621.

The first Russian press, called an anonymous press, was founded in Moscow in approximately 1553. Seven books printed by this press were known of in 1975. On Mar. 1, 1564, in Moscow, Ivan Fedorov and Petr Mstislavets completed printing an edition of the Acts of the Apostles, which was the first Russian printed book to be precisely dated. In 1576 and 1577, Andronik Nevezha worked in the Aleksandrov sloboda (tax-exempt community; now the city of Aleksandrov), where the first Russian provincial press was founded.

At the turn of the 17th century printshops operated periodically in Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, and Our Lady of Iberia Monastery. However, most printed material was published by the Moscow Pechatnyi Dvor (State Printing Office), which by 1700 had printed about 500 books. This office printed the first Russian newspaper, Vedomosti, in December 1702. The newspaper was published regularly beginning in January 1703.

In 1708, Civil typeface was introduced. During the first quarter of the 18th century, St. Petersburg became a major publishing center. The city’s first press had been founded in 1711. Scientific literature was first published by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1727. In 1728 the first Russian journal—Mesiachnye istoricheskie, genealogicheskie i geografi-cheskie primechaniia v Vedomostiakh (Monthly historical, genealogical and geographic comments in the Vedomosti)—was published in St. Petersburg. In the course of the 18th century about 200 different periodicals were published in Russia.

During the last quarter of the 18th century, presses were founded in Yaroslavl (1784), Kaluga (1785), Tambov (1787), Tobol’sk (1789), Nizhny Novgorod (1791), Kursk (1792), Perm’ (1792), Kostroma (1793), Smolensk (1795), Vladimir (1797), and Voronezh (1798).

In the 18th century the first books were published in the different languages of the peoples who had settled Russia. These books were printed by the Academy Press and the Moscow University Press, and beginning in 1785, primarily by I. Shnor’s Asiatic Press in St. Petersburg. In 1801 the first Tatar press was founded in Kazan. The University of Kazan Press, which was established in 1809, did a great deal for the development of book publishing for various nationalities. This press published books in Tatar, Chuvash, Mari, Kalmyk, and Udmurt.

In the 19th century major publishing houses were established, primarily in St. Petersburg and Moscow; publishers included A. F. Smirdin, M. O. Vol’f, A. F. Marks, I. D. Sytin, and A. S. Suvorin. During the 1860’s the revolutionary-democratic publishing houses of N. A. Serno-Solov’evich, N. P. Poliakov, and others were founded. In the 1870’s and 1880’s illegal presses were operated by the revolutionary organizations Land and Liberty, People’s Will, Black Partition, and the Northern Union of Russian Workers in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Novocherkassk, Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog, and Tula.

The Bolshevik press played an important role in preparing for the October Revolution of 1917. The Leninist newspaper Iskra (1900–03) was the first newspaper published by the Bolshevik press. At the beginning of the 20th century, Bolshevik newspapers were published in many cities and industrial centers. On Apr. 22 (May 5), 1912, the first issue of the newspaper Pravda was published in St. Petersburg. In 1913, Russia had a total of 856 newspapers, 1,331 journal publications, and more than 30,000 published book titles.

Conditions for the broad-scale development of publishing, especially in the national language, were created after the October Revolution of 1917. The Gosizdat (State Publishing House) of the RSFSR was organized in 1919. At first, books in the various national languages were published in national centers by divisions of Gosizdat; in 1921 there were 60 divisions in operation. Many peoples who lived in Russia acquired a writing system and a press only after the October Revolution.

In July 1930, in accordance with the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) On the Work of Gosizdat of the RSFSR and on the Unification of Publishing, the Association of the State Book and Magazine Publishing Houses (OGIZ) of the RSFSR was established. In 1963 the State Committee of the RSFSR Council of Ministers on the Press was organized; in 1972 this committee was renamed the State Committee of the RSFSR Council of Ministers on Publishing, Printing, and the Book Trade. The increase in the amount of printed material in the RSFSR is shown in Table 19.

Table 19. Number of published books and periodicals in the RSFSR
Books and pamphlets (thousands)32.54955.0
 copies printed (millions).....353.51,0081,369
Journals, bulletins, etc........1,2142,6035,153
 annual circulation (millions) .....2071,3042,257
Newspapers .............5,7303,9914,410
 single-issue circulation (millions).............2573110
 annual circulation (billions) ......5.117.826.8

The largest republic publishing house, producing political works, popular science, and literature for the masses, is So-vetskaia Rossiia. Agricultural literature is published by Rossel’khozizdat. In 1970 the publishing house Sovremennik was established; it publishes works by classic writers of Russian literature and contemporary writers from the RSFSR. Detskaia Literatura and Malysh are republic publishing houses issuing literature for children and teen-agers. Teaching and pedagogical literature is produced by Prosveshchenie and literature on fine art by Khudozhnik RSFSR. The universities of Moscow, Leningrad, Kazan, Voronezh, Rostov, Saratov, and Tomsk all have large publishing operations.

The largest oblast publishing houses are Moskovskii Rabo-chii, established in 1922, and Lenizdat, established on Nov. 29 (Dec. 12), 1917. In 1974 the following consolidated publishing houses of the krais and oblasts of the RSFSR were in operation: Verkhnevolzhskoe, Volgo-Viatskoe, Vostochno-Sibirskoe, Dal’-nevostochnoe, Zapadno-Sibirskoe, Nizhnevolzhskoe, Privol-zhskoe, Priokskoe, Severo-Zapadnoe, Sredne-Ural’skoe, Tsen-tral’nochernozemnoe, and Iuzhno-Ural’skoe. The publishing houses of the autonomous republics publish books in the national languages. In 1974 there were 50,700 titles of books and pamphlets published in Russian, 1,300 titles published in the other languages of the peoples of the USSR, and 3,000 titles published in the languages of countries outside the USSR.

In 1974 the RSFSR produced 20 all-Union publications, one republic and 153 krai, oblast, and district newspapers, 81 newspapers of the autonomous republics and oblasts, and 428 city, 1,585 raion, 2,027 local, and 106 kolkhoz newspapers. There were 4,106 newspapers published in Russian and 304 newspapers published in the other languages of the peoples of the USSR. The weekly newspaper Sovetskaia Rossiia has come out since 1956. Since 1963 the board of directors and the Moscow organization of the Writers’ Union of the RSFSR have published 4,940 journals, bulletins, scholarly proceedings, and other journal publications in Russian, 71 publications in the other languages of the peoples of the USSR, and 142 publications in the languages of countries outside the USSR.

Also published are the literary and sociopolitical journals Moskva (since 1957), Neva (Leningrad, since 1955), Dal’nii Vostok (The Far East; Khabarovsk, since 1946), Don (Rostov-on-Don, since 1957), Pod”em (Progress; Voronezh, since 1957), and Volga (Saratov, since 1966). In the autonomous republics literary and sociopolitical journals are published in Russian and the national languages.

Central intra-Union and local radio broadcasting in the RSFSR computed on an average daily basis comprises a total of 558.6 hours, including eight programs from Moscow (156.6 hours). Three of the programs from Moscow are relayed to distant areas and are basically delayed broadcasts of the All-Union Radio’s Program 1. Local radio programs are broadcast in 46 languages for a period of 402 hours, including 252 hours of basic programming, 115 hours of ultrashort wave FM, and 35 hours of stereophonic sound. Furthermore, in the RSFSR there is radio broadcasting by municipal radio stations (39.5 hours daily) and by many raion radio stations.

In addition to the All-Union Television Center in Moscow, the RSFSR also has 78 television studios, 135 powerful re-broadcasting stations, and a large network of cable and relay lines in operation in its autonomous republics, krais, oblasts, and autonomous okrugs. Special programs are broadcast on the Vostok and Orbita systems to remote areas, such as Siberia, the Far East, and the northern RSFSR. More than 70 percent of the population of the RSFSR have access to television. Central and local television in the RSFSR broadcast a daily total average of 990 hours, including 785 hours of six programs from Moscow. Programs in the Vostok and Orbita systems are relayed 48 hours daily, with 18 hours of color broadcasting; these programs are planned taking into consideration both the particular characteristics of these remote areas and differences in time zones. Local television studios in the RSFSR broadcast 205 hours daily.

For data on the publication of books, journals, and newspapers, as well as radio and television broadcasting in the individual autonomous republics of the RSFSR, see the section “Press, radio, and television” in the respective articles.


Nazarov, A. I. Oktiabr’ i kniga. Moscow, 1968.
400 let russkogo knigopechataniia, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1964.
Dinershtein, E. A. Razvitie izdateVskogo dela v soiuznykh i avtonomnykh respublikakh. Moscow, 1973.


Folklore. Russian folklore originated in the oral folk poetry of the epoch of the primitive communal system. Historical and comparative analysis of works known through transcriptions dating mainly from the 18th through 20th centuries reveals plots, themes, motifs, and images stemming from this primitive epoch. Such folkloric elements reflect continuous ties with ancient customs and concepts: the theme of combat with a dragon, motifs of humans becoming transformed into animals and of miraculous births, images of fantastic beings, and belief in the magic power of objects.

As class society emerged, the ancient Russian national character formed, and the Kievan state developed, the original body of folklore became altered and reinterpreted. Russian folklore assumed its traditional forms and basic composition between the 11th and 17th centuries. It constituted the creative expression of the toiling masses, primarily the peasantry. Folklore existed in a varied environment. It received important contributions from social groups connected with the peasantry: posadskie liudi (merchants and artisans), soldiers, migrant peasant workers, barge haulers, manor serfs, and convicts.

In the 18th century a workers’ folklore began developing in Russia that included songs about the workers’ hard lot and acts of rebellion, legends, and clandestine tales critical of the existing system. By the late 19th century, the revolutionary song had become the foremost genre in this workers’ folklore. The boundaries between folk songs and composed songs became obscured.

Until the early 20th century, the genres and nature of Russian folklore were conditioned mainly by the peasants’ life, work, world view, and morality. Many genres and genre groups were associated with the rituals accompanying important aspects of economic activity, social customs, and domestic life. Such genres included mandatory rituals observed annually in connection with agricultural holidays, wedding rituals, and funeral laments.

Folklore was linked with aspects of the people’s life. Work songs accompanied the work performed in artels, and laments were chanted as army recruits were led away. There were lullabies and other types of children’s folklore, songs sung at round dances, open-air festivals, and evening gatherings, incantations to ward off diseases and misfortunes, proverbs, sayings, tales, and riddles. Folklore had ritual functions and practical ones relating to economic, legal, and family affairs; it was also connected with games and amusements. Folklore aided in the artistic cognition of nature, man, and family relations; it expressed and reinforced the people’s concepts of the world, labor, and happiness.

Historically and artistically, the most important types of Russian folklore are nonritual lyric songs, epic songs, and tales, which represent the Russian people’s greatest contribution to the world’s poetry and music. Long before the emergence of written poetry, the folk lyric revealed man’s inner world and depicted the emotions evoked by the people’s social and psychological experiences. The folk lyric reflected the gloomy and bright sides of life and expressed the people’s aspirations toward freedom.

Epic songs of various types embodied the people’s perceptions of history and the social conflicts of various periods. The byliny gave a generalized and imaginative depiction, based on ancient epic works, of the people’s struggle with enemies of the motherland; they embodied ideals of heroism and justice and the concept of the limitless potentialities of the people. The figures of the bogatyri (warriors) Il’ia Muromets, Dobrynia Ni-kitich, and Vasilii Buslaev belong to the gallery of the world’s fictional characters.

Folk ballads expressed the people’s perceptions of life’s drama as well as their opposition to injustice. Historical songs reflected the masses’ historical experiences and evaluated historical events and figures of the 16th through 19th centuries; examples are songs about Ivan the Terrible. These songs also celebrated the national liberation movements and their leaders, including Razin and Pugachev, as well as patriotic deeds in defense of the motherland.

A unique reflection of Russian life was provided by the folk tale in such variants as tales about animals, fairy tales, adventure stories, and satiric tales. Tales and legends came to be a treasury of people’s experience gained through the centuries. Other types of folklore were the folk drama, raeshnik (rhymed recitations at fairs), and puppet theater.

The genres, poetry, music, and ideology of Russian folklore are marked by an inner unity that makes this folklore an aspect of national culture. Within this unity, a certain diversity of regional centers and schools may be observed. There are distinctive features in the folklore of the Russian north, the Volga Region, the central regions of Russia, the Cossack regions of the Don and the Terek, the Ural Region, and Siberia.

It is still not known whether ancient Rus’ had professional folkloric masters and, if so, what contribution they made to the establishment and development of certain folkloric genres. From the 18th to 20th centuries the traditions of folk art were preserved and developed by the popular masses themselves, among whom there always existed skilled amateur singers and storytellers.

In the history of Russian folklore, new works and cycles emerged within genres, certain genres died out, and others appeared. Thus, during the 19th century the chastushka (folk ditty, often humorous) and the romance became preeminent within the lyric song genre, and in the 20th century the bylina ceased to exist as a productive genre. A number of genres and folkloric works entered written literature.

Owing to the efforts of several generations of collectors, Russian folklore became part of modern national and world culture and an important source for writers, composers, artists, and actors. Collections of Russian byliny, songs, and tales are popular among today’s readers.

During the Soviet period, many manifestations of traditional folklore have undergone a natural process of extinction. At the same time, another process is taking place that aims to preserve folklore in contemporary forms and to include it in modern Soviet culture. Such modern forms of oral folk poetry as songs, chastushki, tales, anecdotes, and proverbs have developed alongside of traditional folklore. New social, cultural, and living conditions have engendered new themes and ideological content in folklore; to a considerable extent the distinctions between folklore and literature are being obliterated.

There is also a diversified and rich folklore among the nationalities in the autonomous republics and national okrugs of the RSFSR.


Old Russian literature (late tenth through 17th centuries). The literature of Kievan Rus’ is the common source of Russian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian literature. Old Russian literature was part of a total body of written works, primarily practical in nature. These writings included liturgical texts and works dealing with history, geography, and law. An imaginative manner of presentation was an essential component of such genres. Personal authorship was unimportant in works of Old Russian literature, most of which are anonymous. Texts were read and copied over the course of several centuries and were revised to conform to sociopolitical demands, trends of the times, and changes in literary taste. New redactions came into being, as well as numerous variants of one and the same work.

Old Russian literature was mainly factual: it sought to describe actual historical events and rarely contained fictional personages. For a reader of that time, a written text was, as it were, indisputable evidence of the authenticity of what was being described. The reader therefore accepted as true to historical fact even the fantastic stories and fictitious heroes that entered literature from oral legends and translated sources.

Old Russian literature underwent a long and complex course of development in close connection with Russia’s history, and consequently its division into periods coincides in general with a corresponding succession of historical periods. Original works of Old Russian literature date from the second quarter of the 11th century, but Old Russian literary history began late in the tenth century. At this time, when Christianity was adopted in Rus’, Church Slavonic liturgical texts were introduced, coming primarily by way of Bulgaria. Thus Rus’ gained access to the highly developed literatures of Byzantium and the South Slavs. Texts in Church Slavonic constituted a common fund of literature for the South and Eastern Slavs. Among these works were books of the Bible, biblical commentaries, liturgical texts, works by the church fathers, and saints’ lives. There also existed works of world history, including chronicles, chronographs, and the Alexandria, such works of natural science as the Six Days of Creation by Ioannis of Bulgaria and the Physiologus, and apocryphas.

The interests of the developing Kievan feudal state demanded the creation of original works, whose nature was determined by the problems of building the state under such complex historical conditions as nomad incursions and internecine strife among the princes. Literature fostered patriotism, reinforced the historical and political unity of the people and the kinship of the Russian princes, and condemned discord among the princes. From the beginning, lofty patriotism and a sense of civic responsibility were typical traits of Russian literature.

The themes of Russian literature from the 11th century to the 1230’s, that is, until the Mongol-Tatar invasion, determined its style, which was one of grandiose historicism. The writing of Russian chronicles, a genre without exact counterparts in other literatures, began during this period. The Primary Chronicle (c. 1113), the oldest extant Russian chronicle, poses the question of the Russian people’s place among other peoples and recounts the origin and formation of the Russian state. The first Russian hagiographic works were written, namely The Lives of Boris and Gleb (11th century) and The Life of Feodosii of the Kiev-Pecherskaia Laura (1080’s). Also characterized by mature political thought, patriotism, and civic spirit were the first works of rhetorical prose: the Sermon on Law and Grace by Ilarion (first half of the 11th century) and the Sermons of Kirill of Turov (1130–82). The Testament (1117) of Vladimir Monomakh (1053–1125) is permeated by concern over Russia’s fate and a profound humanity.

The highest literary achievement of this period is the Tale of Igor’s Campaign (late 12th century), a work exhibiting verbal mastery and a lofty sense of civic responsibility. It combines traditions of solemn eloquence with literary devices folkloric in nature.

The process of the feudal fragmentation of Rus’ into separate principalities led to the rise of provincial literary centers. Local themes and elements of local folklore entered literature, but they did not affect its general Russian significance. The provincial literary works affirmed the single origin of all the Russian lands, appealed for the preservation of unity among the people, and denounced the internecine strife among the princes.

Literature dating from 1225 to 1300 is marked by a surge of patriotism in connection with the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. The grandiose historical style acquired an expressive tone: works written during this period were tragic, lyric, and elevated in manner. Examples are the Tale of the Battle on the River Kalka, The Tale of Batu’s Destruction of Riazan’, chronicles, works of solemn rhetoric, such as the Sermons of Serapion of Vladimir, and hagiographie works. The concept of strong princely authority became important in literature. Traits of the ideal prince—a military leader and statesman—are found in Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land (first half of the 13th century) and the Life of Alexander Nevsky (1270’s) and are perceptible in the Supplication of Daniil Zatochnik.

Literature appearing between 1300 and the 1450’s reflected the ideology of the period of the unification of the principalities of northeastern Rus’ around Moscow, the formation of the Russian national spirit, and the gradual establishment of a centralized Russian state. The groundwork was laid for a cultural revival in Rus’. Interest revived in Kievan Rus’ and its literature, and ties were reaffirmed with Byzantium and the South Slavs. Moscow became the center for the writing of chronicles.

At this time, the genre of legendary historical tales developed; examples were the Tale of the Battle Between the Novgoro-dians and the Suzdalians, the cycle of tales about Ioann of Novgorod, the Tale of the Novgorod Governor Shchil, the Tale of Merkurii of Smolensk, and the Tale of Temir-Aksak. The battle fought on Kulikovo Field (1380), which was crucial in Russia’s history, inspired a number of works, including (1) the Zadonshchina, a chronicle narrative of the battle on the Don, modeled on the Tale of Igor’s Campaign, and (2) the Tale of the Rout of Mamai.

The development of psychological individualism, within the limits of the prevailing religious outlook, led to the growth of subjectivity in literature, to attempts at depicting psychological states, and to the emergence of a lyric style. Saints’ lives became increasingly panegyrical. Stylistic complexity (“word-weaving”) in hagiography reached its culmination in the Life of Stefan of Perm’ and the Life of Sergii of Radonezh by Epifanii Pre-mudryi and in the hagiographie writings of Pakhomii Logofet (second half of the 15th century).

During the second half of the 15th and the early 16th century, the lyric style continued to develop. In hagiography, the depiction of actual emotions and of historical reality became increasingly frequent, as seen in the Note on the Last Days of Paf-nutii Borovskii and the Life of Mikhail Klopskii. A number of works were based on oral tales, legends, and anecdotes, including the Tale of Peter and Fevroniia of Murom, the Tale of Peter, Prince Royal of the Horde, the Tale of Dracula, and the Tale of Basarga. Many translated works of fiction appeared, among them the Alexandria, Stefanit and Ikhnilat, and the Tales of Troy. As the centralization of the Russian state began, the genre of the political legend underwent particular development; examples were the tales of the Babylonian empire and the Legend of the Princes of Vladimir. Chronicle writing flourished in the late 15th century, when chronicles were gathered together into compilations.

The consolidation of a centralized state in the 16th century was accompanied by the subordination of literature to the state’s interests; it also determined the epoch’s literary style. Literature became grandiose and solemn. Comprehensive works were written to regulate the spiritual, political, legal, and everyday aspects of life. The Velikie Chet’i Minei (Great Monthly Readings) contained texts for everyday reading approved by the church. Other works of this type were the Illustrated Chronicle Compilation, the Book of Degrees, the Stoglav (Book of a Hundred Chapters), and Domostroi (Household Order). Publicist writing flourished during the 16th century. The works of publicist writers of the first half of the 16th century, including Fedor Karpov, Ivan Peresvetov, and Ermo-lai-Erazm, reflected certain Renaissance ideas: faith in reason and in the power of persuasion and of the word, the importance of aspirations to transform society, and the idea of serving the state in the interests of the people. It was precisely in these publicist works that the author’s own viewpoint and distinctive stylistic traits appeared, as is most evident in the Epistles of Ivan the Terrible. Topicality, plots, and literary invention also became characteristic of chronicles and of such historical narratives as the History of the Kazan Empire and the History of the Grand Prince of Moscow by A. M. Kurbskii (1528–83).

During the 17th century, the medieval type of literature gradually became more modern in nature. New and purely literary genres emerged, literature underwent democratization, and its range of themes was significantly broadened. The events of the Time of Troubles and the Peasant War of the late 16th and early 17th centuries altered the prevalent view of history and the role of the individual in history; this led to the freeing of historical literature from church influence. Writers of this period, including Avraamii Palitsyn, Katyrev-Rostovskii, and Ivan Ti-mofeev, attempted to interpret the deeds of Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov, the False Dmitrii, and Vasilii Shuiskii from the standpoint of individual personality traits. Literature developed the concept of the formation and development of the personality under the influence of external circumstances.

In the 17th century the social range of literature expanded. Merchant and artisan literature came into being. Democratic satire ridiculed state and church institutions and parodied court procedure, as in Shemiak’s Verdict. The church service was parodied in The Tavern Service, the Scriptures in the Tale of the Peasant’s Son, and bureaucracy in the Tale of Ersh Ershovichand the Kaliazin Monastery’s Petition. Even the conservative genre of hagiography changed. The hagiographic Tale of Ul’ianiia Osorgina, written by her son, Druzhina Osorgin, became a realistic biography with an abundance of details from everyday life. Hagiography approached biography even more closely in the Life (1672–75) of Archpriest Avvakum (1620–82 or 1621–82). This confession-sermon combined didactic fervor and the elevated manner of hagiography with subjective biography and with psychological depth.

Traits of many tales of the 17th century included an increasing closeness to everyday life, themes of love, and psychological motivation. These characteristics are found in the Tale of Marfa and Mariia, the Tale of the Page’s Monastery of Tver’, the Tale of Woe-Misfortune, the Tale of Savva Grudtsyn, and the Tale of Frol Skobeev. Translated collections of short stories appeared, for example, the Great Mirror, the Gesta Romanorum, and collections of facetiae. Translated chivalric romances took on new life in Russia, among them the Tale of Bova the King’s Son, the Tale of Bruntsvik, and the Tale of Eruslan Lazarevich.

Syllabic verse was introduced into Russia in the second half of the 17th century by Simeon Polotskii and was developed by Sil’vestr Medvedev and Karion Istomin. The history of early Russian literature as a unified phenomenon came to an end in the 17th century; to a great extent this literature paved the way for modern Russian literature.


Eighteenth century. The rise of a modern Russian literature in the 18th century was preceded by a transitional period (1690–1720’s), during which such traditional genres as the sermon, school drama, and panegyric poem continued to develop. An intense social conflict was reflected primarily in the publicist works and official program documents of Peter I, as well as in works by P. P. Shafirov (1669–1739) and Feofan Prokopo-vich (1681–1736). For the first time in Russian social history, a secular political ideology was created that became official political propaganda and included concepts of the legal state and of enlightened absolutism.

The Russian Enlightenment, the main trend of 18th-century social thought, was grounded in the ideology established earlier by Peter I’s reforms. This trend had inherited positive cultural and political elements of the preceding era: ideas of scientific and industrial progress, of education, and of the independence of science and thought from the church. The Russian Enlightenment opposed the idea that fear was the sole means of restraining and controlling man, introducing instead concepts of civic duty and the nation’s welfare. The basic theme of literature became the conflict between the conscious fulfillment of social and ethical duty and the egoistic indulgence in the passions.

From the 1730’s to the late 18th century, Russian literature made enormous strides. The schools of 18th-century Russian literature—the baroque, classicism, and sentimentalism—had unique ideological and aesthetic features and were confronted by specific and historically conditioned national and cultural problems.

Classicism in Russian literature developed as a reaction against the baroque and the entire heritage of medieval literature. The treatises of the founders of Russian classical poetry, A. D. Kantemir (1708–44), V. K. Trediakovskii (1703–68), and M. V. Lomonosov (1711–65) viewed the break with the pre-Pet-rine cultural past as a basis for inaugurating a national literature. To these poets, the need for literary reform was an extension of Peter I’s innovative approach to culture. Kantemir further believed that new literary content could be expressed in the syllabic verse of Simeon Polotskii’s school. Trediakovskii, and later Lomonosov in the 1730’s and 1740’s, replaced syllabic verse with the syllabotonic verse they developed, which was better suited to the Russian language and its accentual system.

The formation of a national literature demanded the solution of two additional problems: the development of a system of genres and of a corresponding hierarchy of language and style. In Kantemir’s works, Trediakovskii’s treatise A New and Brief Method for the Composition of Russian Verse (1735), the Epistle on Versification (1747) by A. P. Sumarokov (1717–77), and Lo-monosov’s Rhetoric (1748), the basic literary genres and their corresponding stylistic norms were defined. The poetics of classicism accorded the greatest importance to the “high” genres: the epic poem, the tragedy, and the solemn or panegyric ode. The creation of the Russian tragedy and the Russian ode by Sumarokov and Lomonosov, respectively, was viewed by their contemporaries as the true beginning of modern Russian literature.

The ethical conflicts of the Russian classical tragedy expressed the chief problems of the epoch’s political self-awareness. The solemn ode of Lomonosov and his followers became a basic literary genre of that time. These odes usually gave expression to topical sociopolitical problems; the panegyric style and the eulogizing of persons in high places were typical features of this genre. Alongside the panegyric ode, religious odes and versified renderings of psalms made by Lomonosov, Trediakovskii, Sumarokov, and G. R. Derzhavin (1743–1816) became distinctive genres with predominantly civic and accusatory or ethical and philosophic content.

In the 1750’s and 1760’s, a special genre of the long philosophic and didactic narrative poem was established; examples were Lomonosov’s Letter on the Use of Glass (1752), Trediakovskii’s Feoptiia (1755), The Fruits of Learning (1761) by M. M. Kheraskov (1733–1807), and Double Bliss (1765) by I. F. Bogdanovich (1743–1803).

The satiric genres of classical literature underwent intensive development. Kantemir’s verse satires, which from the 1730’s through the 1750’s circulated only in manuscript copies, prepared the way for Sumarokov’s and Lomonosov’s verse fables of the 1750’s and the appearance of the comedy in the late 1750’s. Kantemir’s satires also paved the way for the prose satire on mores appearing in journals during the late 1760’s.

The stylistic features of the Russian comedy were based on devices of comic dialogue and on speech traits already developed in fables. Two distinct trends may be observed in the history of the Russian comedy. The first, influenced by the “serious comedy” and “tearful drama,” was primarily moralistic; examples were the comedies of V. I. Lukin (1737–94). The second, a trend of comic satire and unmasking, utilized even the traditions of popular farce. The second trend was exemplified in Sumarokov’s comedies of the 1760’s and in the works of D. I. Fonvizin (c. 1744–92), Ia. B. Kniazhnin (1742–91), and A. I. Klushin (1763–1804).

The principles of satiric fables, written in the 1750’s and 1760’s, were adopted by the satirical journals from 1769 to 1772, especially by those of N. I. Novikov (1744–1818) and F. A. Emin (1735–70). In these journals, socially significant aspects of everyday reality became an increasingly important element in the traditional depiction of comic and other stock types. The basic device of satire remained the comic and unaware self-disclosure of the negative characters.

After the satirical journals were closed down in 1772, the tradition of satire was revived in the journals of I. A. Krylov (1768–1844). Achievements in the minor satiric verse genres of the 1760’s and in the satiric prose of the journals were synthesized by V. I. Maikov (1728–78) in the mock-epic poem Elisei, or Bacchus Enraged (1771). The poetics of the verse tale was developed in Bogdanovich’s narrative poem Dushen’ka (1778; complete edition, 1783).

During the 1760’s, narrative prose began appearing in printed rather than in manuscript form, as seen in the publication of works by Emin, M. D. Chulkov (1734–92 or 1733–92), and M. I. Popov (1742–90). In the last quarter of the 18th century, the comedy underwent new development after the appearance of Fonvizin’s The Minor (staged 1782, published 1783). At the same time, there was a revival of tragedy. In the tragedies of Sumarokov’s most important followers, Kniazhnin and N. P. Nikolev (1758–1815), the focus changed from ethical problems to sociopolitical ones. The characters became authorial mouthpieces who addressed their utterances directly to the audience.

The military and political themes of odes served as sources for Kheraskov’s long narrative poems The Battle of Çeş me (1771) and The Rossiad (1779). Influenced by such modern European epics as T. Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered and Voltaire’s Henriade, The Rossiad was the first Russian epic and was regarded by contemporaries as the highest poetic achievement of Russian classicism.

Derzhavin’s first odes, which appeared in the late 1770’s, combined satire of mores with civic enthusiasm. Derzhavin permitted the mingling of the high and low styles in a single work and made the ode a vital and fruitful poetic genre.

Beginning in the mid-1770’s, Russian literature became influenced by preromanticism and sentimentalism, primarily by way of English literature and German critical thought. The influence of J.-J. Rousseau’s ideas on Russian sentimentalism was equally important. New genres were introduced beginning in the late 1770’s and during the first decade of the 19th century. The ballad, song, and friendly epistle underwent intensive development. I. I. Dmitriev (1760–1837), the most outstanding sentimentalist poet, reworked the ancient genre of the fable stylistically. Dmitriev’s songs and friendly epistles were pleasant and intimate in tone. With the sentimentalists style became individualized, whereas the theorists of classicism had asserted that it should be standardized.

New genres introduced into Russian literature by sentimentalism were travel notes and the sentimental novella. The first original Russian work of travel literature was A Journey From St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790) by A. N. Radishchev (1749–1802). In this work, sensibility, or a thinking person’s ability to apprehend vital impressions and social contradictions inwardly, was the source of an implacable revolutionary enmity to the serf-owning system as a whole. Radishchev’s Journey did not have a direct influence on 18th-century literature; its effect was felt only later, during the Decembrist epoch.

The development of sentimentalist prose was strongly influenced by the novellas and the Letters of a Russian Traveler (published 1791–92) of N. M. Karamzin (1766–1826). Karam-zin’s emotionalized narration and his focus on psychological analysis were innovations in Russian literature. In his works, the narrative genres became the “mirror of the soul” of contemporary man and a means for expressing the individual personality in its complexity and uniqueness. These achievements of Karamzin influenced the later development of Russian prose.


First half of the 19th century. Literary life in Russia in the early 19th century was determined by the deepening crisis of the institution of serfdom, the surge of patriotism in 1812, and the maturing of revolutionary ideas among the gentry, factors that foreshadowed the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia. There was also a gradual transition from the ideological and aesthetic concepts of classicism, Enlightenment realism, and sentimentalism to those of other literary schools, primarily romanticism and realism.

Karamzin remained a central figure in the literary movement of the first decades of the 19th century. He reformed the Russian literary language, wrote the History of the Russian State, and founded the journal Vestnik Evropy (The Messenger of Europe, 1802–03). In critical articles published in this journal, Karamzin set forth his aesthetic program, which aided in the formation of an independent Russian literature.

Traits of classicism and sentimentalism were combined in the verse tragedies of V. A. Ozerov (1769–1816). Controversy between the archaists and Karamzinians over the old and new styles was sharply expressed in the conflict between the literary society Forum of the Lovers of the Russian Word and Arzamas. The traditions of Enlightenment realism found unique reflection in the works of V. T. Narezhnyi (1780–1825). Of foremost importance at this time was poetry. Two poetic trends, elegiac and civic poetry, became distinguished, although the boundary between them was at times obscured.

The originators of Russian elegiac poetry were V. A. Zhukovskii (1783–1852) and K. N. Batiushkov (1787–1855). During the 1820’s this genre was prominent among the works of A. A. Del’vig (1798–1831), N. M. Iazykov (1803–46), and E. A. Bara-tynskii (1800–44). These poets expressed profound dissatisfaction with life as it was. Since they did not believe in the restructuring of society, they sought to create harmony within man himself. To Zhukovskii, the highest values were to be found in lofty spiritual experiences; to Batiushkov and his followers, in morally inspired earthly joys—friendship, love, and sensual enjoyment.

The elegists renewed the poetic language, developed refined forms of poetic expressiveness, and created many new meters, stanzas, rhythms, and intonations. Elegiac poetry gradually became romanticized. In Zhukovskii this tendency was expressed in a mystical attraction to poetic fantasy. The use of folkloric motifs and genres of various epochs and peoples, which was characteristic of romanticism, was exemplified in Zhukovskii’s ballads, Batiushkov’s innovative translations from the Greek Anthology, and Del’vig’s idylls and Russian songs.

Civic poetry was the second principal trend at this time. Some of its traits were to be found in the early 19th-century works of the poets of the Free Society of Amateurs of Literature, Sciences, and the Arts: I. P. Pnin (1773–1805), V. V. Popu-gaev (1778–1816), and I. M. Born (year of birth unknown; died 1851). Civic poetry was represented most brilliantly in the works of the Decembrist poets V. F. Raevskii (1795–1872), K. F. Ryleev (1795–1826), V. K. Kiukhel’beker (1797–1846), and A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinskii (1797–1837).

For the Decembrists, literature was primarily a means of propaganda and struggle. The Decembrists sought to politicize poetry and to establish an ideal norm for civic morality and human behavior. They rejected autocracy and serfdom as incompatible with the laws of reason and the natural rights of man. Hence they were drawn to the traditions of Enlightenment classicism. Another aesthetic principle of the Decembrists was the preromantic concept of the uniqueness of national literatures.

In the early 1820’s, Decembrist poetry began reflecting the complex ideological and psychological revolutionary attitude of the gentry. New literary needs resulted in an reinterpretation of Byronism. A romanticized image of the contemporary hero came into being. This new hero was a patriot and an opponent of tyranny but also a tragic victim of fate and of excessive self-awareness.

Civic poetry also developed nonrevolutionary tendencies, as seen in the verse of N. I. Gnedich (1784–1833), D. V. Davydov (1784–1839), P. A. Katenin (1792–1853), and P. A. Viazemskii (1792–1878). The works of these poets written between 1800 and 1810 anticipated many motifs of Decembrist literature and were directly related to the poetry of the future Decembrists. However, these poets’ independent spirit and love of liberty ran counter to the ideology of the Decembrists. The originality of their works enriched Russian poetry and broadened its range of styles and genres. The poetry of D. V. Venevitinov (1805–27) contained motifs that were akin to the Decembrist love of freedom but were influenced by Schelling’s concept of art. Venevitinov’s poetry and the early lyrics of Baratynskii and of F. I. Tiutchev (1803–73) were important examples of Russian philosophic poetry.

Original contributions to Russian literature were made during the first quarter of the 19th century by Krylov and A. S. Gri-boedov (1795–1829). In the epic and the drama they developed an approach to reality that later constituted the aesthetic foundation of critical realism. The satirical tendency of these writers was expressed in a keen interest in reality and in revelation and condemnation of reality’s many deviations from the norms of reason. This approach took various forms and came close to an objective comprehension of life. The style of Krylov’s fables was based on colloquial popular speech. His fables were free from classical conventions; they stemmed from life itself and expressed popular thought and common sense.

Griboedov’s comedy Woe From Wit (1824) combined the achievements of classicism and realism. It was noteworthy for its lively plot, psychological realism, trueness to life, and characterizations individualized by means of language. The comedy is based on a device typical of Enlightenment satire: the clash between a rational world view and the reality of mores based on prejudice. This conflict brought Woe From Wit close to the Decembrists’ ideology. At the same time, the play revealed the inconsistency of history and the multivalence of life’s phenomena. The characters become increasingly complex during the course of the play, and the play itself combines features of satirical comedy with those of lyrical and psychological drama. Gri-boedov termed it a narrative poem for the stage.

It is clear that during the first quarter of the 19th century, Russian literature was in a state of transition marked by the existence of heterogeneous elements. Romantic and realistic tendencies coexisted with 18th-century rationalist traditions.

The works of A. S. Pushkin (1799–1837), central to the literary movement of the first third of the 19th century, did not belong to any specific literary trend. His lycée, post-lycée, and “southern” lyrics were influenced by a wide variety of poetic schools. But Pushkin transformed these influences, fusing them into an integrated and distinctive world view.

The young Pushkin was close to romanticism, but the evolution from Ruslan and Liudmila (1820) to The Gypsies (1824) is witness that romanticism did not become the basis of his world view: he pursued an independent path. Radical political views became transformed in Pushkin’s works. The love of liberty expressed in his early poems, akin to that of Decembrist poetry, was strongly personal in tone. In the early 1820’s this tone was close to Byronic rebellion, but Pushkin soon abandoned the By-ronic moral and philosophic code. He came to comprehend the omnipotence of history’s objective laws and began seeking the basic premises of social justice within the historical process itself. In Boris Godunov (1825) this search revealed the dramatic interrelationship between the fate of an individual and that of the people.

Pushkin’s realism became all-embracing in the verse novel Eugene Onegin (1823–30). During the 1830’s this realism became established in his lyrics, dramatic works, and prose. Pushkin developed the capacity of finding beauty and poetry in ordinary things. He renewed the literary language; his style overcame the limitations of the traditional system of fixed styles, absorbed elements of folk speech, and became linked to actual life. Pushkin’s works utilized many national cultures, as well as the spiritual heritage of all mankind. His lyrics were unique achievements, as were his Little Tragedies and dramatic scenes. Other outstanding works by Pushkin were such epic narrative poems as Poltava (1828) and The Bronze Horseman (1833), and the prose tales The Tales of Belkin (1830), The Queen of Spades (1833), and The Captain’s Daughter (1836).

Pushkin’s realism was based on an all-encompassing, multi-faceted world view. Pushkin combined historicism with univer-salism and determinism with a recognition of man’s spiritual freedom. He believed that the contemporary world was lacking in harmony. He perceived the alienation of individuals and peoples and the tragic contradictions of history, as well as the unsolvable conflicts between the state and the individual and between the common people and authoritarian despotism.

But these perceptions did not prevent Pushkin from affirming the ideal of another life, a harmonious life with justice for all. This ideal was based on Pushkin’s awareness of the common elements in world history and culture and on his belief in the individual’s unlimited spiritual potential. He discovered moral values in the people that could become the basis of a future social harmony. Pushkin’s fruitful synthesis of reality and the future’s possibilities made his realism the basis of the highest traditions of Russian literature.

Russian literature of the second quarter of the 19th century developed under exceptionally difficult conditions. The suppression of progressive culture became official governmental policy. Reactionary literature became prominent, as seen in the novels of mores by F. V. Bulgarin (1789–1859), the cheaply romantic dramas and prose of N. V. Kukol’nik (1809–68), and the adventure novel of N. I. Grech (1787–1867).

Conservative ideas were reflected in the historical novels of M. N. Zagoskin (1789–1852). The imitative poetry of V. G. Be-nediktov (1807–73) became popular. But it was precisely during this period of political and social stagnation that literature proved to be the chief form of social awareness and the focus for the forces of protest. The study of philosophy intensified, and a new aesthetic creed took form. Russian romanticism and realism became distinct literary trends.

Romantic poetry became influential and developed in several directions. Baratynskii’s later philosophic lyrics expressed a romantic concept of the personality: the individual consciousness dared to comprehend the entire depth of the contradictions between existence and the spirit, without seeking to reconcile them or to escape from them. The lyrics of Tiutchev reflected a universal comprehension of the same contradictions. During the 1830’s and 1840’s his poetry was permeated with a sense of isolation and of a dualistic split in the ego. However, Tiutchev was able to overcome this individualism. The pantheist concepts of a world soul, of cosmos and chaos, and of day and night were connected in his works with the problem of the individual personality and served as a romantic solution of this problem. The drama of the dualistic split in the personality took on universal meaning: man’s entire inner life became an arena for the conflict of the world’s forces. In the same way, the personality was elevated to the level of the divine and universal. The poet abandoned the traditional stylistics of the ode and individualized this genre with unexpected innovations. At the same time, Tiutchev’s unified world view made his lyrics completely original semantically.

Another trend within romanticism was the philosophic and aesthetic reinterpretation of the traditions of civic poetry. This trend had been discernible in the lyrics of A. I. Polezhaev (1804–38), which combined impassioned rebellion with a pessimistic and tragic world view, and in the later works of the Decembrist poets, primarily of A. I. Odoevskii (1802–39).

This trend became most pronounced in the lyrics of M. Iu. Lermontov (1814–41). His early poems, written between 1828 and 1835, expressed a romantic apotheosis of the individual. Lermontov created an original form of the lyric and a meta-phoric poetic language that was uniquely expressive. His image of the lyric hero was central to his entire poetic system.

Lermontov’s concept of the individual raised many new questions. His extremism caused him to experience both Weltschmerz and a longing for complete harmony and total transformation of the world. This extremism was the source of a new, romantic revolutionary and civic spirit. Lermontov’s simultaneous awareness of the unattainability of the ideal and of the impossibility of abandoning this ideal formed the basis of his romantic protest. The permanent split in his consciousness manifested itself in an unprecedented intensity of lyric emotion and of self-analysis. Lermontov’s lyrics focused consistently on man’s inner life in all its complexity.

Lermontov’s mature poetry continued and developed the realistic tendency established by Pushkin. Lermontov began separating himself from the tragic contradictions embodied in his lyrics, transforming these contradictions into sources of objective depiction. This objective tendency reached its highest expression in his novel A Hero of Our Time (1840). In the novel the image of the Lermontovian hero, akin to the lyric hero of the author’s poems, is most fully objectivized. Pechorin cannot be satisfied by any limited moral solution. Traditional class morality, self-sacrificing altruism, and his own demonic egocentrism are all incapable of giving him happiness and faith in the dignity of man. At the same time, the novel reveals the objective predeterminism of history and the value of Pechorin’s conflicts. These conflicts lead to a necessary spiritual crisis that engenders a new morality, not based on rationalism, and a new humanism, devoid of metaphysics.

The works of N. V. Gogol (1809–52) originated a distinctive trend in Russian realism, contrasting in many ways to the trend founded by Pushkin and Lermontov. Gogol at first affirmed the romantic dream of a beautiful and just world and opposed this dream to the poverty and prosaism of life under serfdom; these views were illustrated in Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka (1831–32). His prose and dramas written between 1832 and 1841 contrasted the same dream to the life of contemporary society. Gogol’s satirical approach to reality was based on the principle of “making strange.” The use of this principle varied with genre and style, as seen in the satirical tales in the collections Mirgorod and Arabesques (1835) and in “The Nose” and The Inspector-General (1836).

Gogol’s satire revealed the inner void of Russian officialdom. As Gogol arrived at a realistic understanding of the abnormalities of contemporary life, his ideal changed radically. His ideal was now contrasted to reality not in the form of a dream but as an essential norm of life, capable of being realized. This shift in concepts was reflected in Taras Bulba (1835–42). Gogol then revealed lofty and beautiful traits within the soul of a banal person who merely exists, in the story “Old-world Landowners” (1835). Such innovations were determined by Gogol’s epic tendency and, in particular, by his tendency to create generalized characters.

These tendencies merged harmoniously in the novel Dead Souls (vol. 1, 1842)’, called by Gogol a narrative poem. The work sought to affirm an all-encompassing ideal of a way of life, presented as an ideal of a national revival. The criteria of this projected ideal brought into relief the unnaturalness of contemporary Russian life. Gogol also envisioned a spiritual renewal of the Russian people, believing such a renewal attainable owing to the very nature of the Russian national character.

Gogol was aware of the pernicious influence of unlimited class privilege, of the separation of the state from the people, and of the power of money. Nevertheless, his faith in the moral transformation of persons leading a passive existence was based on hopes for an immediate reform of society. This faith, the basis of Gogol’s sermonizing tendentiousness in Dead Souls, later became the source of a reactionary utopia envisioned by the author.

A link between romanticism and realism was provided by the poetry of A. V. Kol’tsov (1809–42), whose works fulfilled the requirements of both these trends in their lyric expression of the life and world view of the people. Influenced by folkloric traditions, Kol’tsov poeticized the toil and everyday life of the peasants; he was the first to depict the peasants’ life concretely. Kol’tsov also introduced into the Russian lyric the inner world of the village laborer.

As prose developed, the interrelationships between romanticism and realism took on many forms. The prose of N. A. Polevoi (1796–1846) and A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinskii was predominantly romantic. An interweaving of romantic and realist traits marked the prose of A. F. Vel’tman (1800–70) and the novellas of M. P. Pogodin (1800–75). The same is true of the historical novels of I. I. Lazhechnikov (1792–1869) and of Zagoskin, which renewed the historical genre by masterfully re-creating the everyday life of past epochs. Realism predominated in the novellas of N. F. Pavlov (1803–64) and V. A. Sollogub (1813–82).

From 1842 to 1855, Russian literature developed amid increasingly acute social conflicts, intense ideological disputes between the Slavophiles and Westernizers, and a rapid maturation of revolutionary democratic thought. The last was influenced by anthropological materialism, Utopian socialism, and Hegelian dialectics. These currents found expression in the publicist writings of A. I. Herzen (1812–70), the criticism of V. G. Belinskii (1811–48), and the aesthetics and philosophy of the Petrashevskii circle.

The progressive journal Otechestvennye zapiski (Notes of the Fatherland) played an important role from 1839 to 1846, as did Sovremennik (The Contemporary) in later years. During the 1840’s, the social content of literature became intensified. Romanticism remained influential and innovative and responded to contemporary needs, as seen in the novellas of V. F. Odo-evskii (1803–69) and in Odoevskii’s Russian Nights (1844). However, realism now constituted the main literary trend.

During these years, critical and aesthetic thought became influential. The critical writings of the romantic writer Polevoi, which were important in the late 1820’s and in the 1830’s, appeared in the journal Moskovskii telegraf (Moscow Telegraph). Also important during this period was the philosophic criticism of V. F. Odoevskii, I. V. Kireevskii (1806–56), and N. I. Nade-zhdin (1804–56). In the 1840’s the writings of K. S. Aksakov (1817–60) and of V. N. Maikov (1823–47), who was close to the Petrashevskii circle, were influential.

Russian critical thought attained its highest point in the works of Belinskii, who established new principles of literary evaluation. Belinskii demanded penetration of the author’s creative inner world, comprehension of the unity of ideas and images, and the relation of the works under analysis to society and to the development of culture. Belinskii was the founder of a realistic conception of art; he viewed art as a special perception of reality and as a means of expressing thought in images. Belin-skii’s aesthetics was permeated with historicism. He sought to define the principles governing the literary process and to link them to the development of society. His articles and reviews revealed a harmonious concept of the realism and national spirit inherent in literature, factors that Belinskii linked to literature’s democratization.

Belinskii’s aesthetics influenced the writers of the natural school. During the 1840’s the prose works of V. I. Dal’ (1801–72), D. V. Grigorovich (1822–99), I. A. Goncharov (1812–91), I. S. Turgenev (1818–83), F. M. Dostoevsky (1821–81), A. F. Pisemskii (1821–81), M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (1826–89), and Herzen, despite the dissimilarity in their literary approaches, were united in their rejection of serfdom. Without exception, these writers defended the rights and dignity of the individual and turned their attention to man’s social milieu, which for the first time was perceived as an entirely objective force.

The physiological sketch, which dealt with the seamy side of life, was the first genre developed by the natural school. The milieu this genre dealt with was limited in terms of social class, way of life, and occupation. In such short-story cycles, novellas, and novels as Dostoevsky’s Poor People (1846), Herzen’s Who Is to Blame? (1846–47), Goncharov’s A Common Story (1847), and Turgenev’s A Sportsman’s Sketches (1847–52), the milieu described was conceived as society in its entirety. Society was contrasted to the nature of the characters themselves, which was basically healthy and unspoiled. This viewpoint was most pronounced in Herzen’s novel Who Is to Blame?, in which the analysis of the characters’ personal dramas led to a philosophically grounded and politically oriented criticism of society.

Russian realism also developed within the framework of a new type of domestic comedy, primarily in the early works of A. N. Ostrovskii (1823–86). The early poetry of N. A. Nekrasov (1821–77) was marked by a new approach to the realistic lyric. Nekrasov’s early lyrics were innovative in their use of folkloric motifs and urban popular speech. In the spirit of the natural school, these lyrics revealed the tragedy inherent in the life of the modern city. They also made bold use of dramatic and plot elements. The diversity of these realistic seekings prepared the way for the extraordinary synthesizing achievements of Russian realism during the second half of the 19th century.


Second half of the 19th century. Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century introduced new themes and ideas and extended the bounds of realism, creating new forms in prose, drama, and poetry. The second stage of the revolutionary liberation movement determined the distinctive path followed by literature beginning in the 1860’s. Literature became closely linked with sociopolitical problems and the conflict between different tendencies. New and diverse sociopolitical, philosophic, social, and ethical concepts often found expression in literary works.

The question of Russia’s future course of development became particularly acute and was reflected primarily in journalistic polemics. Sovremennik became the voice of the revolutionary democrats; in its pages N. G. Chernyshevskii (1828–89) and N. A. Dobroliubov (1836–61) laid the foundations of a revolutionary and materialist aesthetics. They supported the democratization of literature and opposed the ideologists of pure art and of reaction as well as the “dark kingdom” [ignorance] embodied in the system of serfdom.

Democratic views were also expressed in the journal Russkoe slovo (The Russian Word), whose de facto editor was D. I. Pisa-rev (1840–68). While supporting the revolutionary-democratic ideology, Russkoe slovo polemized with Sovremennik over the positive hero, the people, and art and philosophy. Its arguments revealed a narrowly utilitarian view of the nature and purpose of art and literature. The revolutionary democrats were opposed by a spectrum of journals, from the reactionary Russkii vestnik (The Russian Messenger) and Moskovskie vedomosti (Moscow Gazette) to the liberal Otechestvennye zapiski.

Herzen’s memoirs, My Past and Thoughts (1852–68), became a classic source book for the ideological quests of the 1830’s through the 1860’s.

The life of the people became the focus of literary study during the 1860’s in such genres as the sketch. This genre, utilized to portray the people realistically, was developed by the raznochintsy writers (those belonging to no definite class) N. V. Uspenskii (1837–89), F. M. Reshetnikov (1841–71), V. A. Slep-tsov (1836–78), N. G. Pomialovskii (1835–1863), and A. I. Levi-tov (1835–77). Saltykov-Shchedrin’s cycle Provincial Sketches(1856–57) symbolized the times; its episodes constituted a broad panorama of Russian life that attested to the inevitability of imminent change. Shchedrin’s sketches were in contrast to the revelatory liberal works of A. A. Potekhin (1829–1908), V. A. Sollogub, M. P. Rozengeim (1820–87), and P. I. Mel’ni-kov-Pecherskii (1818–83), who later became a talented por-trayer of the life of the Russian Old Believers.

Russian critical realism flourished during the second half of the 19th century, particularly in the novel. The novel became based on the conflict between the individual and society as well as on the contradictions of life determining this conflict. Exhaustive analyses of life in all its aspects and contradictions broadened the range covered by the novel. Dostoevsky’s The House of the Dead (1861–62) and Pisemskii’s A Thousand Souls (1858) depicted the poverty, injustice, and oppression of Russia under serfdom.

Pushkin’s tradition of the “personal novel” also developed; this genre aimed at psychological and sociopolitical analysis of the hero’s behavior in connection with the unfolding of historical events. Examining the ideological quests of the progressive gentry within the history of Russian self-awareness, Turgenev in Rudin (1856) and A Nest of Gentry (1859) revealed the tragic discrepancy between thought and action among persons of this group. The social and psychological preconditions for the emergence of “superfluous men” were studied by Goncharov in Oblomov (1859).

Having depicted the uselessness of the “men of the forties,” Russian literature and criticism sought a new type of active hero. In the figure of the Bulgarian Insarov in the novel On the Eve (1860), Turgenev first embodied his concept of a hero possessing both idealism and the will to act. Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons (1862) portrayed a Russian Insarov, the democratic nihilist Bazarov, who became a real force in Russian life. The prototype for novels about the “new men and women” was Chernyshevskii’s What Is to Be Done? (1863). The author, solving the difficult problem of embodying the socialist ideal in a work of literature, was the first to create the figure of a professional revolutionary.

With the publication of such novels about the “new men and women” as Pomialovskii’s Bourgeois Happiness and Molotov (both 1861), antinihilist novels also appeared. They included No Way Out (1864) and At Daggers Drawn (1870–71) by N. S. Leskov (1831–95), Pisemskii’s A Troubled Sea (1863), The Mirage (1861) by V. P. Kliushnikov (1841–92), and The Bloody Lie (1869–74) by V. V. Krestovskii (1840–95). Such works sought to discredit the revolutionaries, whose ideas were presented as hostile to the people and alien to the Russian consciousness.

The conflict between these two trends was also reflected in poetry. The democratic poets Nekrasov, D. D. Minaev (1835–89), V. S. Kurochkin (1831–1875), I. S. Nikitin (1824–61), and M. L. Mikhailov (1829–65) were opposed to such advocates of pure art as A. A. Fet (1820–92), Ia. P. Polonskii (1819–98), and A. N. Maikov (1821–97). The satirical journal Iskra (The Spark) and the satirical section “Svistok” (The Whistle) in Sovremennik were influential during this conflict.

Nekrasov achieved a reform of Russian poetry. He transformed elements of ordinary life into art, found poetry in non-poetic themes and words, and extended the genre and the thematic limits of the lyric. However, even the advocates of pure art proved to be an important link in the history of Russian poetry. Fet composed sublime nature and love lyrics and revealed new potentialities for melody in poetry. Many motifs of Polon-skii’s poetry went beyond the bounds of pure art. The same was true of the works of A. K. Tolstoy (1817–75), a refined lyricist, satirist, and humorist and the author of the historical novel The Silver Prince (1862) and the dramatic trilogy comprising The Death of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Fedor Ioannovich, and Tsar Boris (1866–70).

The increase in social awareness and the sense of imminent change also affected the drama. The topical trilogy of A. V. Sukhovo-Kobylin (1817–1903) consisted of the domestic comedy of mores Krechinskii’s Wedding (1855), the satirical drama The Affair (1861), and the tragic farce The Death of Tarelkin (1868). The first antiserfdom tragedy was Pisemskii’s A Bitter Fate (1859). Ostrovskii’s plays condemning the morality of the “dark kingdom”—A Hangover at Someone Else’s Feast (1856), A Profitable Post (1857), The Ward(1859), and the trilogy about Bal’zaminov (1857–61)—and his drama The Thunderstorm (1859) were regarded by Dobroliubov as a presentiment of the imminent downfall of the feudal bases of old Russia.

The years that followed the revolutionary situation—the second half of the 1860’s—were transitional. Turgenev’s novel Smoke (1867) depicted the period in Russia as one of social stagnation. In The Precipice (1869), Goncharov sought a positive base for Russian life and placed his hopes in well-intentioned, enterprising, and pragmatic men of affairs. Novels dealing with “new men and women” changed as well. Sleptsov’s encoded novel Hard Times (1865) depicted a hero unbroken by defeats; although unable to speak and act directly, he stoically endures difficulties.

During the second half of the 1860’s new writers became prominent, among them G. I. Uspenskii (1843–1902). His cycle of sketches Mores of Rasteriaeva Street (1866) reflected the post-reform period and the impoverishment of artisans. The cycle Ruination (1869–71) depicted one of the first accusatory and truth-seeking worker-heroes in Russian literature.

During this period, Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote new cycles, Signs of the Times (1863–71) and Pompadours and Pompa-douresses (1863–74). Saltykov-Shchedrin’s observations of Russian life were crystallized with great power in The History of a Town (1869–70). The city of Glupov (the adjective glupyi means “stupid”) is a symbol of a state system based on oppression, arbitrariness, and despotism. Shchedrin’s satire assumed grotesque and fantastic forms as it expressed the illusoriness of contemporary society.

In the late 1860’s one of the greatest works of Russian and world literature was published, the novel War and Peace (1866–69) by L. N. Tolstoy (1828–1910). Tolstoy had begun his literary career in the 1850’s with such works as Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth (1852–57), Sevastopol Sketches (1855–56), and A Landowner’s Morning (1856). At that time, Chernyshevskii had defined Tolstoy’s literary method as “the dialectics of the soul.” Tolstoy’s brilliant penetration into human psychology, his refined analysis of man’s character and its evolution, and his skillful use of the inner monologue enriched the heritage of world literature. All these devices, previously utilized in the novella The Cossacks (1863), were manifested fully in War and Peace. This innovative novel is a national folk epic encompassing the destinies of nations and the lives of individuals. Actual historical events and figures were interrelated with the moral and philosophic quests of the fictitious characters. The “connection of everyone with everything,” in Tolstoy’s expression, was the novel’s main compositional principle.

The 1860’s witnessed a new stage in the career of Dostoevsky, who began writing a series of ideological novels. In Crime and Punishment (1866) Dostoevsky asserted the need for struggle against a world order based on suffering and on the oppression of man by man. At the same time, he rejected forcible means of restructuring the world. Although he carried on disputes with his ideological opponents, Dostoevsky recognized that the emergence of revolutionary ideas was inevitable as a natural reaction to inhumane conditions of life. However, he believed that rebels, while initiating their rebellion in the name of the downtrodden, come to scorn these unfortunates, thus revealing their own egoistic individualism. In The Idiot (1868), Dostoevsky embodied in the figure of Myshkin his own ideal of the “positive beautiful man,” an ideal of Christian morality and of the unity of mankind based on universal love. The Devils (1871–72) was regarded by the democratic camp as a topical pamphlet directed against the Russian revolutionaries. However, the novel also criticized liberalism and petit bourgeois distortions of socialist ideas, as well as the extreme revolutionary methods known collectively as nechaevshchina.

The revolutionary Narodnichestvo (Populism) movement, originating in the late 1860’s, found reflection in literature. Its initial phase was portrayed by Turgenev in the novel Virgin Soil (1877). Turgenev criticized the revolutionaries from a liberal viewpoint, but he realized that the trend of “going to the people” had arisen as a natural reaction to the conditions of the peasantry’s postreform life. Populism brought into being a literary school of writers who depicted peasant life, including N. N. Zlatovratskii (1845–1911), P. V. Zasodimskii (1843–1912), and N. I. Naumov (1838–1901). These authors wrote mainly sketches depicting the social stratification of the peasantry.

The Populist writers of fiction were also concerned with the role of the intelligentsia and the intelligentsia’s efforts to merge with the people; an example was the novel Episode From Neither a Peahen’s Nor a Crow’s Life (1877) by A. O. Osipovich-Novodvorskii (1853–82). The breakup of the foundations of the old way of life was reflected most fully by G. I. Uspenskii during the 1870’s and 1880’s. His cycles of sketches From a Village Diary (1877–80), The Peasant and Peasant Labor (1880), and The Power of the Soil (1882) illustrated the Populists’ idealization of the patriarchal village and their rejection of capitalism. But Uspenskii was particularly notable for his clearheaded analysis of reality. His literary method—the presentation of his “own thought process” combined with a detailed examination of life—was the result of his search for objective solutions to the problem of Russia’s future. He became convinced that the “rule of capital” had arrived in Russia.

Saltykov-Shchedrin reached an analogous conclusion in his cycles of sketches Gentlemen of Tashkent (1869–72), Diary of a Provincial in St. Petersburg (1872), Well-intentioned Words (1872–76), In the Realm of Moderation and Precision (1874–77), The Sanctuary of Mon Repos (1878–79), and The Year Round (1879). He demonstrated in these works the historical inevitability of the appearance of the Kolupaevs, Razuvaevs, and De-runovs in Russia; postreform Russia was satirically presented as a world of reaction, exploitation, hypocrisy, and lack of principle. In The Golovlevs (1875–80), a novel of family life, the characters’ lives and destinies embodied the vices of the entire system of bourgeois enserfed Russia.

Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (1875–77) dealt with guilt and with each person’s responsibility for his own life and society. Permeated with moral quests, the novel rejects egoistic concepts of happiness. At the same time, Anna Karenina deals with Russian life in all its glaring contradictions. The work’s focus on urgent problems of the life of society, questions of philosophy and art, and problems of family and moral life has made it a unique phenomenon in Russian and world literature. After its publication, Tolstoy underwent an ideological crisis that led him to reject all the foundations of the existing order and to criticize society severely even while advocating a theory of nonresistance to evil by means of force.

Another great philosophic novel dealing with society was Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (1879–81). While recounting the history of “one family,” Dostoevsky portrayed postreform Russia with its social contradictions and its intense conflict of philosophic and moral ideas. Again rejecting revolutionary methods of restructuring the world, and setting his hopes on the age-old principles of Christianity, Dostoevsky revealed the inevitability of revolt against a world of sufferings, a revolt that ends by negating all the moral and social foundations of contemporary society. The novels of Saltykov-Shchedrin, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky are landmarks in the development of mankind’s spiritual culture.

Nekrasov’s narrative poems of the 1860’s, The Peddlers (1861) and Frost the Red-nosed (1864), had dealt mainly with the life of the people. In the 1870’s, Nekrasov wrote narrative poems about the Decembrists, The Grandfather (1870) and Russian Women (1872–73). Morally and in terms of their position in society, the characters in these works were akin to the revolutionary Populists; the revolutionary deeds and sacrifices of the Decembrists expressed the idea of the continuity of revolutionary generations.

Nekrasov’s narrative poem The Contemporaries (1875) depicted bourgeois Russia satirically. A true “encyclopedia of Russian life” in the 1870’s was the narrative poem Who Can Be Happy in Russia? (1866–76). It reflected the decline of the landowners’ power, the peasant reform and its consequences, and the age-old patience and growing protest of the people. The work was innovative in the history of the Russian realistic epic; its hero was not an individual but the people as a whole.

Ostrovskii presented postreform life in Russia as a repellent “dark kingdom” of ignorance. His plays of the 1870’s posed new problems. The Forest (1871) dealt with the gentry’s inevitable departure from the historical arena and the moral purity of persons unable to accept a world of profit-making falsehood. The plays Even a Wise Man Stumbles (1868), Easy Money (1870), Wolves and Sheep (1875), The Girl Without a Dowry (1879), Talents and Admirers (1882), and Guilty Though Guiltless (1884) were devoted to the power of money, which determines man’s entire life and damages his soul. Ostrovskii’s dramas helped establish realism on the Russian stage as well as the realistic school of acting.

The work of N. S. Leskov expanded in scope during the 1870’s. Earlier, Leskov had written refined and truthful works about the life of the people, including “The Life of a Peasant Woman” (1863) and “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District” (1865), as well as antinihilist novels. These two lines were imaginatively intertwined in the novel Cathedral Folk (1872), which both caricaturized the nihilists and reflected an understanding of the strength and greatness of the Russian character. Cathedral Folk was the first of several works by Leskov on Russian “righteous men.” His great diversity of genres included tales, novellas, short stories, legends, and pamphlets.

In the early 1880’s, Populism lost its revolutionary character. The decline of the countryside, poverty, injustice, and the destruction of the peasant commune were the chief themes of the Populist writers beginning their careers at this time. Outstanding among them was N. E. Karonin-Petropavlovskii (1853–92), who wrote the cycles of sketches Stories About the Dwellers of the Village of Parashkino (1879–80) and Stories About Trifles (1881–83) and the novella From the Bottom to the Top (1886). Capitalism as a burdensome way of life in both the village and the city was the subject of sketches dealing with the Ural miners and mining industrialists by D. N. Mamin-Sibiriak (1852–1912). Mamin-Sibiriak’s novels Privalov’s Millions, The Mountain Nest, and Wild Happiness (all 1884) and Gold (1892) were devoted to the same theme. The works of these writers, who dispassionately studied the life of the people, were in contrast to those of the liberal Populists.

The writings of K. S. Barantsevich (1851–1927) and V. L. Kign (1856–1908) advocated learning from the people, but these authors also preached a “theory of small deeds” and rejected the heritage of the revolutionary democrats. Akin to the works of Barantsevich and Kign were the novellas of the Populist publicist A. I. Ertel’ (1855–1908), the novels of the prolific naturalist writer P. D. Boborykin (1836–1921), and the works of other writers of the 1880’s, including I. N. Potapenko (1856–1929) and A. A. Lugovoi (1853–1914).

The political defection and cowardice engendered by the reaction of the 1880’s were the main targets of Saltykov-Shche-drin’s late satire, as illustrated by the cycles of sketches Abroad (1880–81), Letters to Auntie (1881–82), and A Modern Idyll (1877–83). Saltykov-Shchedrin’s collections of sketches Motley Letters (1884–86) and Tales (1882–86) criticized the various forms of reaction and ways of accommodating to reaction. In these works, folkloric motifs were combined with discussion of acute political and ideological problems.

During the 1880’s and 1890’s, Tolstoy rejected the contemporary system and its social and moral foundations. Lenin wrote: “Tolstoy is absurd as a prophet who has discovered new nostrums for the salvation of mankind …. Tolstoy is great as the spokesman of the ideas and sentiments that emerged among the millions of Russian peasants at the time the bourgeois revolution was approaching in Russia” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 17, p. 210). In The Death of Ivan Il’ich (1886) and The Kreutzer Sonata (1889), Tolstoy revealed the moral insub-stantiality and hypocrisy of the ruling class. The innovative drama The Power of Darkness (1887) was a new type of folk drama. In his last novel, Resurrection (1899), Tolstoy tore away all and sundry masks (see Lenin, ibid, p. 209). He censured the world, which was submerged in vice, falsehood, and crime, and appealed for a moral rebirth. His works adopted the viewpoint of the patriarchal peasantry. “The epoch of preparation for revolution in one of the countries under the heel of the serfowners became, thanks to its brilliant illumination by Tolstoy, a step forward in the artistic development of humanity as a whole” (V. I. Lenin, ibid, vol. 20, p. 19).

Tragic motifs emerged in the works of the younger generation of democrats of the 1880’s. They were manifested in the indignant poetry of S. Ia. Nadson (1862–87), filled with complaints and doubts, and in the works of V. M. Garshin (1855–88), whose heroes suffer, commit suicide, or become insane, aware that they are powerless in the face of social evils. Other writers of the 1880’s and 1890’s were A. N. Apukhtin (1840–93), K. K. Sluchevskii (1837–1904), K. M. Fofanov (1862–1911), V. S. Solov’ev (1853–1900), and N. M. Minskii (1856–1937). To a greater or lesser degree they foreshadowed the decadent trend in literature.

Of a different nature was the work of V. G. Korolenko (1853–1921), who even during the reaction of the 1880’s strove to arouse optimistic hopes. He advocated liberty and justice, expressing faith in the spiritual strength of the people in the short stories “Makar’s Dream,” “The Falconer,” and “The Legend of Flora” and the novella The Blind Musician. Garshin and Korolenko sought to renew realism, to depict life both realistically and romantically, and to introduce heroic themes into literature.

The works of A. P. Chekhov (1860–1904) also reflected the imminence of changes in Russian life. During the 1880’s, Chekhov published humorous short stories about the life and mores of the petite bourgeoisie. His novellas, short stories, and plays of the 1890’s depicted the spiritual destruction of persons stifled by a dreary and prosaic life. In speaking of the “tragedy of trivialities” determining the life of contemporary man, Chekhov understood that it was “impossible to live like this anymore” (“The Man in the Case,” 1900). He believed that a “healthful, powerful storm was already drawing near” (The Three Sisters, 1900). This confidence in an imminent renewal of life became, in Chekhov’s last works, a dream of a better future, as illustrated in “Gooseberries” and “The Betrothed.” Chekhov created a unique type of short story, laconic and ideologically saturated, and such innovative dramas as The Seagull (1896), Uncle Vanya (1897), and The Cherry Orchard (1903–04). In his works, details became generalizations of great significance, and “trivial” themes from private life became the basis for judging contemporary society. Chekhov’s innovations were an important influence on the development of the drama and the short story in Russia and abroad.

Russia’s entrance into the third, proletarian stage of the liberation movement was reflected in the publicist writings of the 1890’s. In the journals Novoe slovo (New Word) and Zhizn’ (Life), a polemic developed between the Marxists and the Populists, who were grouped around the journal Russkoe bogatstvo (Russian Wealth). A vivid expression of the social developments of the 1890’s was the work of M. Gorky (1868–1936). Gorky introduced into literature both the elemental protest of the popular masses against the bourgeois world order and the people’s dream of social justice.

Linked with the traditions of Russian democratic literature, Gorky depicted the downtrodden, rejected lower levels of society—the milieus of the “former people,” “tramps,” and “lower depths”—where the abnormality of capitalist life was particularly evident. However, Gorky was able to reveal the complex spiritual world within outwardly insignificant persons, as well as these individuals’ profound dissatisfaction and quest for a meaningful, free life. These themes were illustrated in “The Orlov Couple,” “Grandfather Arkhip and Lenka,” “Ko-novalov,” and “Chelkash.” Unable to find a new hero—a revolutionary worker—among the popular masses, Gorky embodied his ideal of a freedom-loving hero in legendary, folkloric, and allegorical figures, as seen in “Makar Chudra,” “Old Izer-gil,” and “Song of the Falcon.” Gorky’s works were the first manifestations of revolutionary art, which was to be predominant in the art of the next century.

Russian literature during the second half of the 19th century reflected the acute contradictions of the postreform, prerevolutionary period and the prevailing sense of imminent and inevitable change. Russian realism developed new genres and approaches corresponding to these ideas and expanding the limits of literature.

Russian classical literature developed in close interaction with the literatures of the other peoples of Russia and influenced these literatures beneficially. Nineteenth-century Russian literature had a great influence on world literature. Particularly important in this connection were the leading figures of critical realism, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov, whose works have been continually translated into the principal foreign languages since the last third of the 19th century and have won international renown.


The 20th century (prior to 1917). The prerevolutionary period was a turning point in literature. The prevailing crisis of bourgeois ideology was manifested in the influence of decadence on many works of literature and art. At the same time, a literature arose that was linked to the developing struggle of the working class and its party. A group of talented writers, rightfully called the pride of Russian literature, flourished at this time, among them Gorky, A. A. Blok (1880–1921), I. A. Bunin (1870–1953), V. V. Mayakovsky (1893–1930), and V. Ia. Briusov (1873–1924). Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Korolenko—classic realist writers—continued their work in the 20th century. The authors V. V. Veresaev (1867–1945), A. I. Kuprin (1870–1938), and L. N. Andreev (1871–1919) were prolific at this time.

Various literary camps demanded the greater involvement of literature in life and society. This trend was begun by Tolstoy, who during the last years of his life advocated an increased instructive, sermonizing role for literature. In a letter to Chekhov, the young Gorky wrote: “The time of need for the heroic has arrived.” During the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, Gorky wrote the novel Foma Gordeev, the novella The Three, the plays Smug Citizens, The Lower Depths, and Enemies, and the novel The Mother. These works revealed him as a new type of proletarian writer, rendering, in Lenin’s words, “a tremendous service to the working-class movement of Russia—and indeed not only of Russia….” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 47, p. 220).

The 1890’s had witnessed the appearance of the poetry collections of K. D. Bal’mont (1867–1942) In Boundlessness and Silence, Briusov’s publication of the collections Russian Symbolists (fascs. 1–3, 1894–95), and the appearance of the poetry of F. Sologub (1863–1927), D. S. Merezhkovskii (1866–1941), Minskii, and Z. N. Gippius (1869–1945). These works marked the advent of symbolism in Russian literature. Rebelling against critical realism and “stifling, moribund positivism,” the symbolists proclaimed “three main elements of the new art: mystical content, symbols, and an expansion of artistic impressionability” (D. S. Merezhkovskii, Poln. sobr. sock, vol. 18, Moscow, 1914, p. 218). The symbolists broke with the democratic and civic traditions of Russian literature, advocating an extreme individualism. They united around the following journals: Severnyi vestnik (The Northern Messenger), Mir iskusstva (World of Art), and Novyi put’ (The New Way) and later Vesy (The Scales) and Zolotoe runo (Golden Fleece). In the early 1900’s, the character of the symbolist movement changed with the appearance of the “younger” symbolists: Blok, A. Belyi (1880–1934), V. I. Ivanov (1866–1949), and S. M. Solov’ev (1885–1942). In contrast to the “older” symbolists, the younger symbolists were oriented in many respects toward national traditions. This determined their interest in Russian literature and history, their religiously oriented idea of the national spirit, and their belief in Russia’s special mission. The religious philosopher and poet V. Solov’ev had a strong influence on them.

Blok expanded the range of symbolism. His first works had been mystical poems about the Beautiful Lady. New themes entered his poetry in the early cycle Crossroads (1902–04). Blok’s first lyric play, The Puppet Show, reinterpreted Solov’ev’s mysticism in tones of romantic irony. The tragedy of contemporary man and an intensified quest for the meaning of the eternal themes of love and death were important motifs of the cycle Terrible World and of The Motherland, The Field of Kulikovo, and Retribution. The last three works were also pervaded with a sense of civic and social responsibility, satirical denunciation of the unnatural capitalist world, and an interest in the Motherland’s historical past and destiny.

During the social evolution of the early 1900’s, democratic writers began gathering together in groups. The Moscow “Wednesday” circle of N. D. Teleshov (1867–1957) had been formed as early as 1899. When Gorky joined the St. Petersburg Znanie (Knowledge) association in 1900, the publishing house became the center of realistic literature. The Znanie collections incuded Gorky’s The Mother, Summer, and The Town of Okurov, Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, Bunin’s “Chernozem,” Kuprin’s The Duel, and Andreev’s “The Life of Vasilii Fivei-skii,” “The Red Laugh,” and To the Stars. Znanie also published’works by A. S. Serafimovich (1863–1949), Skitalets (1869–1941), and S. N. Sergeev-Tsenskii (1875–1958).

During this period even some decadent writers expressed aversion to the social foundations of tsarist Russia. In his book of poems Ashes (1909), Belyi created in the traditions of Nekra-sov the image of an oppressed country crushed by poverty; the novel Petersburg (1913—14; separate edition, 1916) was a memorable and grotesque depiction of the high-ranking bureaucracy. In his novel The Petty Demon (1905; separate edition, 1907), Sologub satirically depicted the effects of the reactionary social stagnation of the 1880’s.

The social reaction that followed the defeat of the Revolution of 1905–07 engendered uncertainty in some members of the Russian intelligentsia. Disillusioned with revolutionary ideals, many of the Znanie group abandoned social problems and turned to “mysteries of sex,” “enigmas of death,” and questions of religion. Appearing side by side in the almanacs Shipovnik (Dog Rose) and Zemlia (Land) were such literary antipodes as Kuprin and Belyi and S. I. Gusev-Orenburgskii (1867–1963) and M. P. Artsybashev (1878–1927).

Literature for the diversion of the “new class” also arose; although it was not profound, it had a certain artistic expressiveness. Examples were the spicy romances of A. N. Vertinskii (1889–1957), the miniatures of O. I. Dymov (1878–1959), and the refined poetry of I. Severianin (1887–1941).

During this period, efforts were made to revise the materialist and Marxist world view from a religious and idealist standpoint, and apostates from Marxism became idealists and agnostics. This was reflected in articles by N. A. Berdiaev, S. N. Bulgakov, and P. V. Struve published in the collection Milestones (Vekhi, 1908).

A polemic against the literary reaction was waged by such talented Marxist critics as G. V. Plekhanov (1856–1918), V. V. Vorovskii (1871–1923), and A. V. Lunacharskii (1875–1933). Plekhanov, who had written a defense of the revolutionary and democratic traditions in aesthetics and criticism in the late 19th century, became a founder of the Marxist sociology of art. Plekhanov was the first in the history of Marxist thought to be concerned with the methodology, aims, and course of development of scientific aesthetics and literary theory and criticism. Luna-charskii’s works of the early 20th century asserted the need for a link between artists and the revolutionary movement of the working class. Lunacharskii founded a theory of proletarian realistic art. From a Marxist viewpoint he discussed the relationship between the proletariat and the intelligentsia working in the arts, as well as Russia’s cultural heritage and the class nature of art. The two collections of criticism entitled Literary Disintegration, published in 1908, expressed sharp opposition to the literature and philosophy of decadence.

A militant program for Bolshevik criticism was provided in Lenin’s articles “Party Organization and Party Literature,” “In Memory of Herzen,” and “On the National Pride of the Great Russians” and in Lenin’s articles on L. Tolstoy. Of great importance was Lenin’s theory of reflection and the Leninist doctrines concerning the class and party nature of art, the democratic and socialist cultural heritage of the past, and the critical revision and utilization of mankind’s cultural values. Lenin’s theories provided a permanent methodology for the literature of socialist realism, for Marxist literary theory and criticism, and for the party’s leadership of art and literature after the October Revolution of 1917.

Gorky wrote significant works during the decade following 1910, including The Life of Matvei Kozhemiakin (1910–11), Childhood (1913), In the World (1916), and the cycle of short stories Through Russia (1912–16). Like Blok, Bunin turned to the theme of Russia, in The Village (1910), Dry Valley (1911), and the stories “Ignat,” “A Merry Courtyard,” and “Zakhar Vo-rob’ev” in Peasant Stories. Bunin’s nature, philosophic, and intimate lyrics continued the traditions of the “silver age” of Russian poetry as exemplified by the works of Fet, Polonskii, and A. Maikov.

Traditional realism continued to develop, but it was still far from possessing a consistently revolutionary ideology. Kuprin strongly opposed the corrupting influence of bourgeois life, for example in Moloch, “At the Circus,” The Duel, and The Pit. He glorified nature, the strength and beauty of man, and lofty, total love in Olesya, “The Emerald,” “Listrigony,” and “The Garnet Bracelet.”

A sense of social change pervaded the short stories about life in outlying urban areas by I. S. Shmelev (1873–1950), including “Citizen Ukleikin” and “The Man from a Restaurant.” The degeneration of the landowning gentry was vividly described in grotesque Gogolian prose by A. N. Tolstoy (1882–1945) in the cycle Beyond the Volga and the novel The Lame Master. A. M. Remizov (1877–1957), a master of skaz (individualized literary narration) and a restorer of pre-Petrine language, was the author of Sisters of the Cross, The Pond, and Following the Sun.

M. M. Prishvin (1873–1954) depicted untouched nature with great power, utilizing folklore and folk myths, in In the Land of Unfrightened Birds, The Loaf, and The Black Arab. Satire became intensified in works written between 1910 and 1920. Contributors to the journals Satirikon (Satyricon) and Novyi Satirikon (New Satyricon) were the talented satirists and humorists Sasha Chernyi (1880–1932), A. T. Averchenko (1881–1925), and N. A. Teffi (1872–1952). The denunciatory “hymns” of Mayakovsky were published in Novyi Satirikon.

During the years preceding the Revolution, Russian literature developed amid many contradictions. Synthesizing the realistic and romantic world views, Gorky laid the foundations of the method of socialist realism.

As the revolutionary movement grew, writers from the poorest proletarian and peasant strata published their works with increasing frequency; among them were S. P. Pod”iachev (1866–1934), I. E. Vol’nov (1885–1931), S. D. Drozhzhin (1848–1930), E. E. Nechaev (1859–1925), and F. S. Shkulev (1868–1930). The first poems by the proletarian poets L. P. Radin (1860–1900) and A. Ia. Kots (1872–1943) were published. The Bolshevik newspapers Zvezda and Pravda, which printed works by Gorky and Serafimovich, played an important part during these years in gathering the forces of the new, proletarian literature. Dem’ian Bednyi (1883–1945) wrote topical political satire. A number of young poets, primarily workers, began publishing, among them A. I. Mashirov-Samobytnik (1884–1943), A. K. Gastev (1882–1941), and I. G. Filipchenko (1887–1939). A group of “peasant poets” began publishing as well during the decade following 1910. Continuing under the new conditions the traditions of Kol’tsov and Nikitin, these poets included S. A. Klychkov (1889–1940), N. A. Kliuev (1887–1937), and P. V. Oreshin (1887–1938). The most outstanding was S. A. Esenin (1895–1925).

During this period, bourgeois culture was undergoing a crisis. Elements of expressionism, with its rationalist system of symbols and its extreme exaggeration, appeared in literature, as seen in L. Andreev’s King Hunger and The Life of Man. Impressionism, with its indefinite outlines, pastel coloration, and musi-cality, was reflected in The Light Blue Star by B. K. Zaitsev (1881–1972). Ornamental, artificially stylized prose was exemplified in the works of Remizov and in Tale of a District by E. I. Zamiatin (1884–1937). Belyi experimented with rhythmic prose. Originality was manifested in the poetry of I. F. Annen-skii (1856–1909) and M. A. Voloshin (1877–1932) and in the works of such younger poets as B. L. Pasternak (1890–1960), M. I. Tsvetaeva (1892–1941), and V. F. Khodasevich (1886–1939).

The acmeist poets expressed a fundamental acceptance of reality, affirming the cult of the primacy of things. They demanded clarity and harmony in literature, in contrast to the hazy irrationality of symbolism. At the same time, they avoided the social aspects of life. The theorist of acmeism was N. S. Gumilev (1886–1921), and the group included S. M. Gorode-tskii (1884–1967), A. A. Akhmatova (1889–1966), M. A. Kuz-min (1875–1936), O. E. Mandel’shtam (1891–1938), M. A. Zenkevich (1891–1973), and V. I. Narbut (1888–1944).

In contrast to the acmeists, another literary group, the Cubo-Futurists, appealed for a petit bourgeois, anarchic revolt against philistinism and for a radical restructuring of poetic language, expressing a nihilistic attitude toward the culture of the past. The group included D. D. Burliuk (1882–1967), V. V. Khlebnikov (1885–1922), V. V. Kamenskii (1884–1961), A. E. Kruchenykh (1886–1968), and Mayakovsky. However, Mayakovsky’s early lyrics and such narrative poems as A Cloud in Pants, The Spinal Flute, and War and Peace expressed a humanist tendency as well as a protest against war and against capital, the uncrowned “ruler of everything.” Mayakovsky’s works and their very structure were permeated with a presentiment of a revolutionary upheaval.

Russian literary life during the years preceding the Revolution was marked by complexity and tension. Opposition between inimical literary principles and between literary methods and trends had already engendered elements of a new literature. These elements developed extensively during the Soviet period.


Soviet Russian literature. Soviet Russian literature as a literature of socialist realism represents a new phase in the development of world literature. It has inherited the best and most progressive elements from the spiritual culture of the Russian people, the other peoples of the USSR, and all mankind. Soviet literature creatively develops such traditions of the Russian classics and popular literature as realism, a national spirit, patriotism, and humanism. Permeated with optimism and life-affirming communist ideas, it educates Soviet man to be the builder of a new world. Soviet literature strengthens its ties with the life of the people, truthfully and artistically reflects the richness and diversity of socialist life, portrays what is new and genuinely communist, and denounces forces opposed to progress. Soviet literature is marked by a wide variety of styles and literary approaches.

Prior to the Great October Socialist Revolution, the principles of socialist art had been developed in works by Lenin and by Plekhanov, Vorovskii, and other Marxist critics, who were guided by the ideas of Marx and Engels and the theories of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Lenin devoted constant attention to the development of Soviet literature. He advocated realism and a party and national spirit in literature and opposed the use of art for the dissemination of bourgeois ideology.

The works of Gorky were of particular importance in the development of the literature of socialist realism. Gorky laid the foundations of socialist realism with his novel The Mother and his play Enemies (both 1906). His autobiographical narratives Childhood, In the World (1913–16), and My Universities (1922) vividly described his journey from the lower strata of society to the heights of culture and the formation of his revolutionary consciousness. His novel The Artamonov Business (1925) and his plays Egor Bulychov and the Others (1932) and Dostigaev and the Others (1933) depicted the decay and impending downfall of Russia’s exploiting classes.

The October Revolution led to a sharp division among Russian literary figures. The Revolution was greeted with enthusiasm by Gorky, D. Bednyi, Serafimovich, and Mayakovsky. Other writers, including Blok, Briusov, Esenin, Veresaev, Prish-vin, K. A. Trenev (1876–1945), V. Ia. Shishkov (1873–1945), and Sergeev-Tsenskii, sided with the Revolution. A number of writers emigrated, including L. Andreev and Bunin. Some later returned to the Motherland, among them A. Tolstoy in the early 1920’s and Skitalets, Kuprin, and Tsvetaeva during the 1930’s.

The literary chronicle of the Revolution was inaugurated mainly by poetry, which even before 1917 was represented by the works of D. Bednyi, Mayakovsky, and the poets contributing to the newspapers Zvezda and Pravda. Blok’s narrative poem The Twelve (1918) was the natural culmination of classical Russian poetry and the first achievement of the new Soviet literature. The poem’s expansive, polysemous images vividly described the turning point engendered by the Revolution as well as the “powerful stride” of the insurgent people. Bednyi wrote the verse novella For the Land, for Freedom, for the Workers’ Lot (1917). His narrative poem Main Street (1922) created a hyperbolized and generalized portrait of the revolutionary masses. Mayakovsky’s Mystery-Bouffe (1918)—the first Soviet play—was an ode to the Revolution and a merciless denunciation of the old world.

The acute class struggle and the revolutionary social upheaval were vividly reflected in the literary works written soon after the Revolution and during the 1920’s. Many literary trends and groups clashed dramatically in an ideological and literary conflict. Soviet literature consolidated its position, attacked hostile ideological tendencies, and received convincing literary support for its own ideology. The Proletkul’t (Proletarian Cultural and Educational Organization), organized on the eve of the October Revolution, carried on cultural and educational work among the proletariat. It united talented members of the proletariat, who were striving to create a new culture.

However, the Proletkul’t theoreticians were erroneous in asserting the need for a distinctive proletarian culture. They denied the cultural heritage of the past and advocated separation of the party and the state. The aesthetic programs of the various avant-garde trends and groups demanded the creation of a new art rejecting all cultural traditions. The letter of the Central Committee of the RCP(B) “On Proletkul’ts” (1920), which revealed these errors, was therefore of great importance in the history of Soviet ideology.

Lenin provided ideological and aesthetic guidelines for Soviet art in his speeches attacking the Proletkul’t, his praise of Gorky’s works, his rejection of the formalist tendencies in Mayakovsky’s narrative poem 150,000,000, his positive response to Mayakovsky’s poem “Lost in Conference,” and his remarks on the strong and weak aspects of Bednyi’s talent. “We will have a superb proletarian literature, the world’s first,” Lenin said to Serafimovich (On Literature and Art, 1969, p. 687).

THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD (1918–20). During the Civil War (1918–20), Soviet literature expressed a revolutionary spirit. Mayakovsky’s postrevolutionary poems, including “Ode to the Revolution” and “Left March” (both 1918), were innovations in the history of the lyric. Kamenskii turned to the theme of popular uprising in his narrative poem Stepan Razin (2nd ed., 1918). Khlebnikov’s narrative poems Night in a Trench and Night Before the Soviets (both 1921) were epic works encompassing the events of the Revolution. The poets V. D. Aleksan-drovskii (1897–1934), Gastev, M. P. Gerasimov (1889–1939), and V. T. Kirillov (1890–1943) celebrated the Proletarian in abstract and hyperbolic images. The poems about work by V. V. Kazin (born 1898) in the collection Workers’ May (1922) were notable for their simplicity and naturalness of intonation. The stern ardor of revolutionary heroism was sharply outlined in the ballads of N. S. Tikhonov (born 1896) in the collections The Horde and Mead (both 1922).

Writers contributing to periodicals at the front included D. A. Furmanov (1891–1926), B. A. Lavrenev (1891–1959), L. M. Leonov (born 1899), K. A. Fedin (born 1892), and A. S. Neverov (1886–1923). As the new government and new consciousness became established, ideological and aesthetic principles were formulated and material was accumulated for future works. Beginning in 1921 the following “thick” literary journals were published: Krasnaia nov’ (Red Virgin Soil), Kniga i revoliutsiia (Books and the Revolution), Pechat’ i revoliutsiia (The Press and Revolution), Sibirskie ogni (Siberian Lights), Molodaia gvardiia (Young Guard), Novyi mir (New World), and Oktiabr’ (October). The transition from the Civil War to peacetime life, the New Economic Policy (NEP), and the complex problems of socialist construction posed new literary questions.

THE 1920’S. During the first half of the 1920’s, the theme of revolution, which remained central, was developed with increasing depth. One prevailing tendency, the abstractly schematic depiction of the Revolution and its heroes, was typified in The Naked Year (1921) by B. A. Pil’niak (1894–1941). Naturalist excesses and formal experimentation were exemplified in Rivers of Fire (1923) by Artem Veselyi (1899–1939). These tendencies increasingly gave way to a comprehension of the popular nature of the Revolution. Problems of revolutionary consciousness, organization, and discipline became focuses of interest. Works developing these themes included Two Worlds (1921) by V. Ia. Zazubrin (1895–1938), Partisan Stories (1921–22) by Vs. V. Ivanov (1895–1963), Mulch (1922) by L. N. Seifullina (1889–1954), The Fall of Dair (1923) by A. G. Malyshkin (1892–1938), The Wind (1924) by Lavrenez, and, to an extent, Leonov’s The Badgers (1924).

A landmark in Soviet literature was Serafimovich’s novel The Iron Stream (1924), one of the first classics of socialist realism. The Taman’ Army’s heroic campaign of the summer of 1918, an actual campaign of the Civil War, was the basis for this novel. At the novel’s center is the image of the popular masses, which have passed through the crucible of revolution and the torments and sufferings of an unprecedented struggle. Furmanov’s novel Chapaev (1923), about the well-known division commander, expressed profound historical and psychological truths. In the figure of Chapaev, the author personified the people, aroused by the Revolution to a new life and to creative work. These works, together with the later novel The Rout (1927) by A. A. Fadeev (1901–1956), were the first to combine concreteness with authentic portrayals of Bolsheviks, the leaders of the revolutionary masses. Of particular importance in the quest for a new type of hero was the depiction of Lenin in Gorky’s sketch “V. I. Lenin” (1924–31), Mayakovsky’s narrative poem Vladimir Il’ich Lenin (1924), and a number of poems by Mayakovsky.

New human relationships and the acuteness of the class struggle impelled literature to solve the complex problems of revolutionary humanism. The moral conflicts engendered by the acute class conflict, including the dilemma of faithfulness to revolutionary duty, were expressed in various ways in the novellas The Week (1922) by Iu. N. Libedinskii (1898–1959) and The Forty-First (1926) by Lavrenev, in the novels Cities and Years (1924) and The Brothers (1927–28) by Fedin, and in the novels On That Side (1928) by V. Kin (1903–37), Red Cavalry (separate edition, 1926) by I. E. Babel’ (1894–1941), and Tales of the Don (1926), the first book by M. A. Sholokhov (born 1905). The principal theme of Neverov’s works was that of man amid the harsh experiences of devastation, hunger, and the Civil War, as seen in the novella Tashkent, the City of Bread (1923). In the novella of romantic fantasy Red Sails (1923), A. Grin (1880–1932) recounted the triumph of man’s dream of happiness.

During the second half of the 1920’s, the short story developed intensively; examples were A. Tolstoy’s “The Ancient Path” (1927), Vs. Ivanov’s “The Mystery of Mysteries” (1927), Fedin’s “The Transvaal” (1926), and Leonov’s Unusual Tales About Muzhiks (1928). Writers who became known through their short stories and novellas included 1.1. Kataev (1902–39) with The Heart (1927) and Milk (1930) and A. P. Platonov (1899–1951) with The Epifan’ Locks (1927).

The number of large-scale works realistically reflecting the restoration of the national economy increased, and their literary level improved. They included Cement (1925) by F. V. Gladkov (1883–1958), Blast Furnace (1925) by N. N. Liashko (1884–1953), and The Timber Mill (1928) by A. A. Karavaeva (born 1893). A number of works explored the acute class contradictions of the NEP period. Leonov’s novel The Thief (1921) depicted the psychological drama of the transformation of man from a Civil War fighter to a renegade. The lofty world of revolutionary deeds and ideas clashed with the philistine world of the NEP in A. Tolstoy’s novella The Viper (1928). In the grotesque and ironic novel Envy (1927) by Iu. K. Olesha (1899–1960), the struggle between the old and new during the NEP period became an ethical conflict.

Vestiges of capitalism in people’s consciousness were objects of satire during the 1920’s. Important satirical works included Mayakovsky’s poems “The Pillar” and “The Toady” and his plays The Bedbug (1928) and The Bathhouse (1929). Other satirical works were the collections of short stories Raznotyk (1923) and Esteemed Citizens (1926) by M. M. Zoshchenko (1895–1958), the novel Twelve Chairs (1928) by I. A. Il’f (1897–1937) and E. P. Petrov (1903–42), and the play The Shot (1930) by A. I. Bezymenskii (1898–1973).

Narrative poems written during the second half of the 1920’s sought to interpret the social and historical significance of the Revolution. Mayakovsky’s It’s Good! (1927) was a lyric epic that announced the birth of a new lyric hero, a creator and master of life. Other narrative poems of this period were Esenin’s Ballad of the Twenty-six (1924) and Anna Snegina (1925), Ballad of Opanas (1926) by E. G. Bagritskii (1895–1934), Semen Proskakov (1928) by N. A. Aseev (1889–1963), Nineteen Hundred Five (1925–26) and Lieutenant Shmidt (1926–27) by Pasternak, and The Ulialiaev Story by I. L. Sel’vinskii (1899–1968).

The broad range of innovative Soviet poetry appearing during this period consisted of many elements, including the passionate oratorical intonation of Mayakovsky’s publicist and intimate lyrics and the ardor of lyrics by Esenin, who was striving “to understand at every moment a Russia upheaved by the Soviet commune” (the collection Soviet Russia, 1925). Other innovations were the complex, associative poetry of Mandel’-shtam in Second Book (1923) and the drama of the poems in the collection Columns (1929) by N. A. Zabolotskii (1903–58). Heroic romanticism and gentle irony were expressed in poems by M. A. Svetlov (1903–64), including “To a Girl Student at the Workers’ Higher School” (1925) and “Grenada” (1926). Also new were the poetic experiments of S. I. Kirsanov (1906–72) and the Komsomol enthusiasm of poems and songs by Bezymenskii, A. A. Zharov (born 1904), and I. P. Utkin (1903–44).

During this period, there was an expansion in the range of themes and devices utilized in plays depicting the social and moral conflicts of the revolutionary years. Examples were The Gale (1926) by V. N. Bill’-Belotserkovskii (1884–1970), Trenev’s heroic drama about the Revolution Liubov’ Iarovaia (1926), and Lavrenev’s The Break (1928). The same was true in plays dealing with contemporary life, among them Man With a Briefcase (1928) by A. M. Faiko (born 1893). M. A. Bulgakov (1891–1940) depicted the sense of doom among the White Guards in his plays Days of the Turbins (staged 1926) and Flight (staged 1957).

The complexity of the class struggle during the transitional period was reflected in a literary and aesthetic conflict. The realist and modernist trends were in opposition, and various literary organizations and factions engaged in disputes. The Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP) was a mass literary organization. Initially it played a positive role, uniting the majority of proletarian writers and combating bourgeois ideology in literature. But by the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, RAPP began exhibiting distorted and oversimplified sociological tendencies; it thus hindered the development of Soviet literature.

False theoretical premises in the programs of certain other factions sometimes led to erroneous, idealistic concepts. The Pereval (The Pass) group exaggerated the role of intuition and the subconscious in literature. The Serapion Brothers affirmed the apolitical nature of neutrality, and the independent value of art. LEF (Left Front of the Arts) propagandized the theories of the “social commission” and the “literature of the fact,” thus lessening the ideological importance of literature. The con-structivists ignored the social meaning of Russia’s industrialization. The works of the best writers belonging to these organizations generally went beyond the boundaries of one-sided factionalism.

The resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP(B) On Party Policy in Literature (1925) emphasized that in a class society art cannot be neutral. The resolution condemned the narrow caste system of some literary factions and appealed for a progressive literature high in quality and free from bourgeois influence. The Central Committee warned the proletarian writers against arrogant conceit, capitulation to bourgeois ideology, and attempts to monopolize the publishing of literature; it advocated “the greatest tact, care, and patience with regard to the literary strata that can and will go with the proletariat” (O Par-tiinoi i sovetskoi pechati: Sb. dokumentov, 1954, p. 346). The resolution facilitated the further unification of literary forces on the basis of party spirit and socialist principles of art. Also essential was the continual aid rendered by party leaders, first and foremost by Lunacharskii. Lunacharskii developed the aesthetic principles of Soviet literature and encouraged a positive attitude toward the classical heritage. He warmly supported all manifestations of talent in art.

THE 1930’s. The socialist industrialization and collectivization of agriculture initiated a new phase in Soviet life. The party called on writers “to depict more deeply and comprehensively the heroism of socialist construction and of the class struggle, the transformation of society, and the development of new people—the heroes of socialist construction” (On Publishing, Decree of the Central Committee of the ACP[B] of Aug. 15, 1931, ibid, p. 422).

The heroism of the early five-year plans opened up vast prospects for writers. Books about socialist construction and the new life and destiny of individuals and the nation were imbued with enthusiasm for the future, an enthusiasm that revealed the poetry of the present. The themes of Soviet literature during the 1930’s were varied. They included the attack against the patriarchal system of Old Russia and the arousing of people to work for the benefit of society, motifs illustrated in Leonov’s Sot’ (1930). The poetry of the planned reconstruction of the nation’s life was reflected in Hydrocentral (1930–31) by M. S. Sha-ginian (born 1888). The concept of tempo “determining everything,” the unprecedented acceleration of events, and the intensity of a heroic epoch were dealt with in Time, Forward! (1932) by V. P. Kataev (born 1897). The Great Conveyor (1934) by Ia. N. Il’in (1905–32) was a compressed “biography” of the Stalingrad Tractor Plant.

Life during collectivization and the first years of the kolkhozes was reflected in many works of this period. They included the novella The Running Start (1930) by V. P. Stavskii (1900–1943) and the novels Bast Sandals (1929–36) by P. I. Za-moiskii (1896–1958) and Hatred (1932) by I. P. Shukhov (born 1906). The novel Bruski (books 1–4, 1928–37) by F. I. Panferov (1896–1960) portrayed the spiritual growth of people in the new countryside.

The dramatic birth of a new, socialist way of life in the countryside was most successfully depicted in the first book of Sholokhov’s novel Virgin Soil Upturned (1932). The disintegration of the age-old peasant order was portrayed as a great social and historical transformation, carried out by the masses under the leadership of the Communist Party. The novel combined an epic comprehension of reality with profound sociopsychologi-cal insights, vivid nature descriptions, and lively popular language.

Ties among the national literatures of the USSR became strengthened during the 1930’s. The life of the fraternal peoples became an important theme in Russian literature, as seen in Tikhonov’s Poems About Kakhetia (1935), Travel Diary (1939) by V. M. Inber (1890–1972), Kara-Bugaz (1932) and Kolkhida (1934) by K. G. Paustovskii (1892–1968), To the Bolsheviks of the Desert and the Spring (books 1–3, 1931–48) by V. A. Lu-govskoi (1902–57), and A Man Changes His Skin (parts 1–2, 1932–33) by B. Iasenskii (1901–41).

By the early 1930’s, the majority of Soviet writers were actively involved in socialist construction. All literary forces became united into a single organization, the Writers’ Union of the USSR, which was established by the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) On the Restructuring of Literary and Artistic Organizations (1932).

Gorky played a unique role in directing writers to the tasks set by the party. He oriented the nascent Soviet literature toward an attentive study of the new way of life. With this goal in mind, he established the journal Nashi Dostizheniia (Our Achievements) in 1929, as well as the yearly almanacs The Year XVI, The Year XVII, and The Year XVIII (1933–35) and the joint works Histories of Plants and Factories, A History of the Civil War, and The Day of Peace. For the benefit of young writers, Gorky founded the journal Literaturnaia ucheba (Literary Studies) in 1930.

The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, held in August 1934, consolidated the unity of Soviet literature and directed it along the path of socialist realism, whose basic principle is the truthful and historically accurate depiction of life in its revolutionary development. At the congress, literature was described as multinational but unified in its socialist content; much attention was devoted to problems of developing the literatures of the fraternal peoples of the USSR and strengthening the ties between these literatures.

Soviet literature provides an important example of cooperation among peoples in the creation of a socialist culture and the mutual enrichment of fraternal literatures. In this process, Russian literature has played a leading role: Mayakovsky’s poetry has influenced the civic lyrics of many of the USSR’s peoples, and Sholokhov’s Virgin Soil Upturned has influenced novels about collectivization in the Union and autonomous republics.

The focus of Soviet literature during the 1930’s was the new man, who had grown up and become educated during the Soviet period. Literature depicted the formation of this man during the Revolution, at work, and in close relation with the group and with society. The portrait of a young communist selflessly devoting his strength and life to the revolutionary cause was portrayed in the novel by N. A. Ostrovskii (1904–36) How the Steel Was Tempered (parts 1–2, 1932–34), a vivid human document that exerted great influence. Pavel Korchagin became a model for revolutionaries in many countries. Pedagogical Poem (1933–36) by A. S. Makarenko (1888–1939) depicted the reeducation through work of homeless children, newly aware of their responsibility for a common cause.

Malyshkin’s novel Backwater People (1937–38) depicted the profound moral and psychological transformation of people from isolated backward regions who are participating in industrial production. The novel The Tanker Derbent (1938) by Iu. S. Krymov (1908–41) revealed how people change during the course of socialist emulation. Satirical works of the 1930’s, including Il’f and Petrov’s novel The Golden Calf (1931), the cycle of feuilletons Ivan Vadimovich, A Man Satisfying Requirements (1933) by M. E. Kol’tsov (1898–1942), and plays by E. L. Shvarts (1896–1958) also helped in their own way to educate socialist man.

During the 1930’s, many important Soviet prose works were completed. Gorky’s large-scale novel The Life of Klim Samgin (1925–36), with its many themes and broad panorama of 40 years of Russian life before the October Revolution, was a penetrating analysis of the historical, ideological, and political premises of the Revolution. The novel also revealed the failure of the antisocialist ideology and of bourgeois philistine individualism. The two irreconcilable camps depicted in the novel were represented by Klim Samgin, the embodiment of boundless egoism and moral and political duplicity, and Stepan Kutu-zov, a personification of the intelligence, energy, and selflessness of the Bolshevik party and the Russian working class.

The historic destiny of the Don Cossacks during the Revolution was portrayed in Sholokhov’s epic The Quiet Don (1928–40; published in English as And Quiet Flows the Don, 1934, and The Don Flows Home to the Sea, 1940), based on the life and mores of the Cossacks. Against this background, Sho-lokhov depicted the movement of history and posed questions of general importance. A. Tolstoy wrote that The Quiet Don is “an all-Russian, national work, which belongs to the people.” The figures central to the novel—Grigorii Melekhov, Aksin’ia, and Mikhail Koshevoi, as well as other characters—are depicted with exceptional power and are among the profoundest characterizations in Russian and world literature. The importance of The Quiet Don for the literature of socialist realism lies in the novel’s unswerving trueness to life and its portrayal of all the contradictions and conflicts arising during the complex and difficult emergence of a new, communist world.

A. Tolstoy’s trilogy Road to Calvary (1920–41) was a comprehensive, colorful description of the role played during the Revolution and Civil War by the best representatives of the old Russian intelligentsia. The novel also presented a broad portrayal of the popular mass movement led by the Bolsheviks.

The poetry of the 1930’s was inaugurated by the publication of Mayakovsky’s confession and testament, the introduction to his narrative poem At the Top of My Voice, which formulated the ideological and aesthetic credo of the new poet. The predominant verse genre at this time was the epic, which reflected the drama and depth of the social and moral conflicts engendered by the Revolution. Examples were Bagritskii’s Death of a Pioneer Girl (1932), The Mother (1933) by N. I. Dement’ev (1907–35), Tripol’e (1934) by B. P. Kornilov (1907–38), and The Kulaks (1936) by P. N. Vasil’ev (1910–37). Bezymenskii’s narrative poem Tragic Night (1931) was devoted to the construction of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Plant. The figure of Maya-kovsky was at the center of Aseev’s narrative poem Mayakovsky Begins (1940). A peasant’s painful thoughts upon beginning a new life were conveyed by A. T. Tvardovskii (1910–71) in the narrative poem The Land of Muraviia (1936).

The romance of everyday life, illuminated by the eternally living heroism of the Revolution, was expressed in the lyrics of this period. These motifs were reflected in the poems of Svetlov, the declarations of love for work and the new life by Ia. V. Sme-liakov (1913–72), the folk-song manner of poems by A. A. Prokof’ev (1900–71), and the conversational intonation of poems by S. P. Shchipachev (born 1899).

Historical themes were dealt with by K. M. Simonov (born 1915) in Battle on the Ice (1938) and Suvorov (1939) and by D. B. Kedrin (1907–45) in The Master Builders (1938) and The Pyramid (1938). The poems and songs of M. Golodnyi (1903–49) and A. A. Surkov (born 1899) were devoted to patriotism and defense. The songs of V. I. Lebedev-Kumach (1898–1949), written in collaboration with the composers I. O. Duna-evskii and V. G. Zakharov, expressed the optimism of Soviet society. Many poems by M. V. Isakovskii (1900–73) became popular songs.

A lyric tendency was manifested in the prose works Ginseng (1933) by Prishvin and Summer Days (1937) by Paustovskii and in the short stories and sketches by I. S. Sokolov-Mikitov (1892–1975). Lyric dramas of the 1930’s included Mashen’ka (1940) by A. N. Afinogenov (1904–41) and Tania (staged 1939) by A. N. Arbuzov (born 1908). The epic drama An Optimistic Tragedy by V. V. Vishnevskii (1900–51) was published in 1933. The play Intervention (1932) by L. I. Slavin (born 1896) dealt with the Revolution and Civil War. One of the characters in the play Man With a Gun (1937) by N. F. Pogodin (1900–62) was Lenin.

The historical novel became increasingly important in the 1930’s. Works written during the first two decades of Soviet power combined vivid re-creation of the past with a materialist interpretation of history. They included Kiukhlia (1925) and The Death of Wazir-Muchtar (1927–28) by Iu. N. Tynianov (1894–1943), Clad in Stone (1925) and Radishchev (1932–39) by O. D. Forsh (1873–1961), Razin Stepan (1926–27) by A. P. Chapygin (1870–1937), Salavat Iulaev (1929) by S. P. Zlobin (1903–65), Emel’ian Pugachev (1938–45) by Shishkov, and Genghis Khan (1939) by V. G. Ian (1875–1950). The first novel by N. E. Virta (born 1906), Loneliness (1935), was devoted to the doomed kulak uprising in the Tambov region during the Civil War. A. Tolstoy’s novel Peter I (1929–45) was an outstanding literary achievement.

By the late 1930’s, the theme of the Motherland’s defense was gaining in significance. Gorky’s publicist writings, Kol’tsov’s Spanish Diary (1938), and Ehrenburg’s novel The Fall of Paris (1940–41) dealt with the contemporary world. Historical works that helped develop morale in preparation for a possible war included Tsushima (1932–35) by A. S. Novikov-Priboi (1877–1944), Major Overhaul (part 1, 1932) by L. S. Sobolev (1898–1971), Kochubei (1937) by A. A. Perventsev (born 1905), and The Ordeal of Sevastopol (1937–39) by Sergeev-Tsenskii.

Soviet children’s literature flourished during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Major achievements in this genre were tales and poems by K. I. Chukovskii (1882–1969) and S. Ia. Marshak (1887–1964), the works of A. P. Gaidar (1904–41), imbued with the romance of revolution, and poems for children by Maya-kovsky, S. V. Mikhalkov (born 1913), and A. L. Barto (born 1906). Other works for children were Forest Gazette for Each Year by V. V. Bianki (1894–1959), A. Tolstoy’s Nikita’s Childhood (1920–22) and The Golden Key, or The Adventures of Buratino (1936), Olesha’s adventure novel Three Fat Men (1924), the novel by V. A. Kaverin (born 1902) Two Captains (books 1–2, 1938–44), novellas and short stories by L. A. Kassil’ (1905–70) and B. S. Zhitkov (1882–1938), and V. Kataev’s novella Lonely White Sail (1936). In the collection of tales The Malachite Box (1939), P. P. Bazhov (1879–1950) adapted the vivid characters and motifs of Ural folklore with originality.

THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR. From the first days of the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, Soviet literature devoted itself entirely to the defense of the socialist Fatherland. Writers worked for the press at the fronts and fought with weapons in their hands. Many gave their lives for the Motherland, including Gaidar, Krymov, Petrov, Stavskii, and Utkin.

The task set for literature was the efficient mobilization of all forces for the conflict with the enemy. During the early stage of the war, this task was effected by means of poems and newspaper articles. Lebedev-Kumach’s song “The Holy War” (1941) became an anthem of the Great Patriotic War.

Poets utilized the age-old traditions of folk literature; they were inspired by the all-embracing, national character of the war and by their own desire to attain maximum verbal effectiveness. Poems were written in the form of incantations, curses, oaths, and laments, including Simonov’s “Wait for Me” and “Kill Him!,” Surkov’s “Song of the Bold,” Akhmatova’s “Courage,” and many others.

Themes of publicist works included the striving for a historical, philosophic, and empirical conception of the motherland as well as merciless exposure of fascist ideology and fascism’s hostility to world civilization and culture. These motifs were seen in Ehrenburg’s War (books 1–3, 1942–44), A. Tolstoy’s What We Are Defending and “Russian Warriors,” Sholokhov’s “The Science of Hatred,” and Leonov’s “Glory to Russia” and “Rage.”

Literature made every Soviet person clearly aware of “what we are defending” and depicted the greatness of the people’s power that opposed the enemy. The revolutionary traditions of the people were the subject of the narrative poems Kirov Is With Us (1941) by Tikhonov and Little House in Shushenskoe (1944) by Shchipachev. At the same time, increasing attention was devoted to the people’s military feats in the past, in such works as the novel Port Arthur (books 1–2, 1940–41) by A. N. Stepanov (1892–1965). The national Russian character was the theme of A. Tolstoy’s The Stories of Ivan Sudarev (1942–44), Prokof’ev’s narrative poem Russia (1944), and Simonov’s play The Russian People (1942).

Wartime works based on examples of military valor, fortitude, and courage included Leonov’s play Invasion (1942), the narrative poem Zoia (1942) by M. I. Aliger (born 1915), Simonov’s novella Days and Nights (1943–44), The Unsubdued (1943) by B. L. Gorbatov (1908–54), and Sobolev’s cycle of short stories Soul of the Sea (1942). Soviet writers affirmed the need for socialist patriotism, heroism, and self-sacrifice in war and aided the party in transforming the workers of peacetime into brave, disciplined, and highly competent soldiers; examples are Gor-batov’s Aleksei Kulikov, Fighter (1942), Volokolamsk Highway (1943–44) by A. A. Bek (1902–72), and the play The Front (1942) by A. E. Korneichuk (1905–72).

The best wartime works reflected a spiritual atmosphere that combined an ideological and moral upsurge with realism and an awareness of the patriotic unity among the peoples of the USSR. Increased attention was devoted to civic duty and to such universal and personal themes as friendship, love, family, home, life, and death. Works expressing these motifs included Simonov’s poem “Do You Remember, Alesha, the Roads Around Smolensk?,” Surkov’s “The Fire Rages in the Tiny Stove,” the poems in the collection Bonfire at the Crossroads (1944) by M. A. Dudin (born 1916), and February Diary (1942) and other works by O. F. Berggol’ts (1910–75). The poignant lyricism of Berggol’ts’ works was intensified by the harsh reality of life during the blockade.

In studying the nature of Soviet man, Soviet literature has striven to reveal the social and historical origins of his fortitude, a fortitude whose source is the socialist system. Works dealing with these themes include the narrative poems The Pulkovo Meridian (1943) by V. M. Inber (1890–1972), Son (1943) by P. G. Antokol’skii (born 1896), and Missing in Action (1942–46) by E. A. Dolmatovskii (born 1915) and such novellas as The People Are Immortal (1942) by V. S. Grossman (1905–64) and Leonov’s The Taking of Velikoshumsk (1944).

The best literary work of the wartime years was Tvardovskii’s narrative poem Vasilii Terkin (1942–45), which expressed with great depth and power the people’s feelings during the war as well as their view of the war. The poem’s hero was a typical Soviet Russian soldier of the Great Patriotic War who personified the qualities that helped the Soviet people withstand the enemy and emerge victorious. Humorous and profoundly truthful, classically clear in its poetic form, this “book about a soldier” became the favorite book of millions.

After the war, Russian literature continued to depict the war and the victory over fascism. Documentary sources were the basis of Fadeev’s novel The Young Guard (1945; new edition, 1951) and The Story of a Real Man (1946) by B. N. Polevoi (born 1908). These works revealed the moral essence of Soviet man—the victor over fascism—and his lofty aspirations toward heroism. Fadeev investigated the history of the underground Komsomol organization Young Guard, which operated in the city of Krasnodon. This enabled him to depict typical heroic Soviet young people, to create a novel of great educational value, and to portray the invincible strength of Soviet patriotism.

Prose works about the Great Patriotic War written soon after the war exhibited great diversity. Thus, the novel White Birch (book 1, 1947) by M. S. Bubennov (born 1909) depicted the first months of the war with great realism. On the other hand, the novella The Star (1947) by E. G. Kazakevich (1913–62), which truthfully recounted the heroism and annihilation of a reconnaissance patrol, was distinctly heroic and romantic in tone. In Traveling Companions (1946) by V. F. Panova (1905–73), life on a hospital train served as the basis for the study of human character. Ehrenburg’s novel The Storm (1947) was an attempt to create a panorama of World War II.

The profound misfortunes experienced by the people during the war found powerful expression in Tvardovskii’s narrative poem The House by the Road (1946). A number of young poets who had been at the front wrote verse reflecting what they had seen of war and of men at war. They included S. P. Gudzenko (1922–53), A. I. Nedogonov (1914–48), S. S. Narovchatov (born 1919), A. P. Mezhirov (born 1923), and later K. Ia. Vanshenkin (born 1925), E. M. Vinokurov (born 1925), S. S. Orlov (born 1921), and M. D. L’vov (born 1917).

The decrees of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) on ideology, adopted between 1946 and 1948, including the decree On the Journals Zvezda and Leningrad, were very important in the development of postwar literature. These resolutions, directed at raising the level of ideological work, explained the lofty mission of socialist literature and art. They emphasized the importance of the Communist Party spirit in literature and of a Marxist-Leninist world view in correctly depicting socialist reality. The resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU were aimed at creating works combining lofty ideological content with literary excellence.

POSTWAR PERIOD. Central in literature of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s was the theme of labor exploits. Many writers strove to depict advanced workers in the city and countryside as well as communists—organizers of the masses and leaders in production. Such figures included Voropaev in the novel Happiness (1947) by P. A. Pavlenko (1899–1951), the engineers Batmanov and Beridze in the novel Far From Moscow (1948) by V. N. Azhaev (1915–68), and characters in the novels Harvest (1950) by G. E. Nikolaeva (1911–63), Days of Our Life (1952) by V. K. Ketlinskaia (born 1906), and Height (1952) by E. Z. Vo-rob’ev (born 1910). Similar characters appeared in the narrative poems Flag Over the Village Soviet (1947) by Nedogonov, Spring in “Pobeda” (1948) by N. M. Gribachev (born 1910), and Working Day (1948) by M. K. Lukonin (born 1918) and in the play The Moscow Character (1948) by A. V. Sofronov (born 1911). Such figures were also found among three generations of a dynasty of shipbuilding workers in the novel The Zhurbins (1952) by V. A. Kochetov (1912–73).

Soviet writers have staunchly supported peace. They have denounced the bourgeois ideology and way of life as well as imperialism and colonialism; they have revealed the conflict between the two social systems. These attitudes are revealed in such books of poetry as Simonov’s Friends and Foes (1948), Sur-kov’s Peace to the World (1950), and Tikhonov’s Two Currents (1951), in such plays as Simonov’s The Russian Question (1946) and Lavrenev’s The Voice of America (1950), and in Griba-chev’s publicist sketches.

Important works of postwar Russian literature included Pa-nova’s novel Kruzhilikha (1948), Kaverin’s trilogy The Open Book (1949–56), and the short stories of S. P. Antonov (born 1915) and Iu. M. Nagibin (born 1920). Leonov’s socially oriented philosophic novel Russian Forest (1953) revealed the humanism of the people’s heroism during the war against fascism. The novel glorified work as a creative act, the highest manifestation of human existence.

The prerevolutionary and revolutionary periods were re-created in Fedin’s books First Joys (1945), An Unusual Summer (1947–48), and The Bonfire (1961–65), The Strogovs (1939–46) by G. M. Markov (born 1911), The Saian Mountain Ranges (1940–46) by G. M. Markov (born 1911), The Saian Mountain Ranges (1940–54) by S. V. Sartakov (born 1908), The Creation of the World (separate edition, 1956) by V. A. Zakrutkin (born 1908), A Story of My Childhood (1949) and other works by Glad-kov, and The Discovery of the World (1947–67) by V. A. Smirnov (born 1905).

The victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, the creation of a worldwide system of socialism, and the rapid downfall of the colonial system have changed the world and caused writers to become more concerned with ideology and politics.

During the 1950’s literature became enriched with new works that subjected contemporary Soviet life to profound analysis. They reflected current changes and the growing need for social development. These changes and needs were linked with the appearance of traits of mature socialism and with the Communist Party’s efforts at further democratizing life, efforts that included overcoming the consequences of the cult of personality. Soviet literature began a more profound resolution of social and philosophic problems. Soviet writers also overcame the tendency to simplify and “varnish” Soviet life that had been manifested in some works of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

Tvardovskii’s narrative poem Distance Beyond Distance (1950–60) was the lyric diary of a poet-citizen meditating about the past and present of his socialist Motherland, about the profound historical implications of the changes taking place there, and about the artist’s responsibility to the people. Nikolaeva’s novel Battle En Route (1957) was a broad panorama of Soviet life during the 1950’s.

Attempts to reveal life’s contradictions and to overcome such contradictions from the viewpoint of party ideology were themes of the novella Not Suited (1954) by V. F. Tendriakov (born 1923), the novels The Four Seasons (1953) by Panova and The Searchers (1954) by D. A. Granin (born 1919), and the plays Good Luck (1954) by V. S. Rozov (born 1913) and A Personal Matter (1954) by A. P. Shtein (born 1906). The novellas Cruelty and Trial Period (both 1956) by P. F. Nilin (born 1908) and the trilogy by Iu. P. German (1910–67) comprising the novels The Cause You Serve (1957), My Dear Fellow (1961), and I Am Responsible for Everything (1964) explored problems of socialist humanism and faith in man.

The 1950’s witnessed a revival of the Soviet sketch, which dealt with contemporary Soviet life. An intensive and thorough study of the countryside’s urgent problems was made by V. V. Ovechkin (1904–68) in Workdays in the Raion (1952–56) and by A. V. Kalinin (born 1916) in At the Mean (1954).

Literature based on documentary sources was important at this time. A number of books studied the economic, social, and psychological roots of fascism, revealed the scope of crimes against the world and humanity, disclosed the names of criminals and their victims, and described the heroic struggle of the Soviet people against the enemy. Such works included People With a Clear Conscience (1946) by P. P. Vershigora (1905–63) and That Was at Rovno (1948) by D. N. Medvedev (1898–1954). Important contributions to the chronicling of the Great Patriotic War were made by S. S. Smirnov (born 1915) with his books The Brest Fortress (1957) and The Heroes of the Brest Fortress (1959).

Literary life gained new vitality during the second half of the 1950’s, as seen in the significant increase in the number of literary and theoretical journals and almanacs. These included lunost’ (Youth) and Inostrannaia literatura (Foreign Literature; both since 1955), Nash sovremennik (Our Contemporary) and Molodaia gvardiia (Young Guard; both since 1956), Don, Moskva (Moscow), and Voprosy literatury (Problems of Literature; all since 1957), and Russkaia literatura (Russian Literature) and the newspaper Literatura izhizn’ (both since 1958).

Alongside Moscow and Leningrad, major literary centers arose in Vologda, Voronezh, Rostov-on-Don, Smolensk, Irkutsk, Khabarovsk, and other cities of the RSFSR. The Writers’ Union of the RSFSR was established, and the first congress held in December 1958. The works of many non-Russian writers became widely popular in the Soviet Union and abroad, including those by the Tatar M. Dzhalil’ (1906–44), who died heroically in fascist captivity, the Avar R. Gamzatov (born 1923), the Bashkir M. Karim (born 1919), the Balkar K. Kuliev (born 1917), the Kalmyk D. Kugul’tinov (born 1922), and the Chukchi Iu. Rytkheu (born 1930). The literatures of the fraternal peoples of the USSR, including those of the RSFSR’s peoples, have been influenced by Soviet Russian literature and in turn have had a beneficial influence on it, resulting in mutual enrichment. During the 1950’s and 1960’s there was an increased tendency toward lyricism and philosophic generalization in poetry, in such prose works as Berggol’ts’ Stars by Day (1959) and Vladimir Lanes (1957) and A Dewdrop (I960) by V. A. Solou-khin (born 1924). The leitmotifs of Lugovskoi’s extensive cycle of philosophic and lyric narrative poems Midcentury (1958) were the succession of historical epochs and the immortality of revolution. In the collection Poems (1959), Zabolotskii meditated on the greatness of art, the essence of beauty, and the inspiration provided by nature. A number of poets wrote philosophic lyrics original in style, thought, feeling, and themes. Such works included Antokol’skii’s collection Workshop (1958), Aseev’s collection Harmony (1961), Marshak’s Selected Lyrical Verse (1962), Poems (1961) by L. N. Martynov (born 1905), and Svetlov’s book Hunter’s Cabin (1964). Pasternak’s cycle of poems When the Skies Clear (1956–59) was published, as was Akhmatova’s collection The Flight of Time (1965).

The originality of the poets of the “middle generation” was revealed in the collections Memory (1957) and Work (1964) by B. A. Slutskii (born 1919), Vinokurov’s collection Confessions (1958), and the collections Nearby Countries (1958) and The Second Pass (1963) by D. S. Samoilov (born 1920). Similar works were the collections Conscience (1961) and Barefoot Over the Earth (1965) by A. Ia. Iashin (1913–68), the collections Signs of the Earth (1961) and Vaults (1967) by V. S. Shefner (born 1914), Mezhirov’s collections Windshield (1961) and Farewell to Snow (1964), and the collections On the Sunny Side (1961) and Change of Days (1965) by V. N. Sokolov (born 1928).

Reflections on love and work, the historical role of the working class, and the Soviet Motherland were expressed in A. Prokof’ev’s book of poems Invitation to a Journey (1960), Verses and Narrative Poems (vols. 1–2, 1959) by N. I. Rylenkov (1909–69), the collection Lyrics (1959) by B. A. Ruch’ev (1913–73), Smeliakov’s narrative poem An Austere Love (1956) and collection A Conversation About the Main Thing (1959), the narrative poem Venus Sold (1958) by V. D. Fedorov (born 1918), and works by Shchipachev, Dudin, and S. V. Smirnov (born 1913).

During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, another group of young writers began publishing. Their works, although uneven in literary merit, were notable for civic enthusiasm and originality. They included the collections The Promise (1957) and The Apple (1960) and the narrative poem Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Plant (1965) by E. A. Evtushenko (born 1933), the collections Parabola (1960) and Antiworlds (1964) by A. A. Voznesen-skii (born 1933), the narrative poems Sputnik (1958) and Letter to the 30th Century (1965) by R. I. Rozhdestvenskii (born 1932), the collections Mead (1960) and Hallo! (1967) by V. D. Tsybin (born 1932), the novella Colleagues (1960) by V. P. Aksenov (born 1932), and the collection of short stories The Blue and the Green (1963) by Iu. P. Kazakov (born 1927). These writers introduced into literature the figure of a young hero who in his creative work overcomes an unrealistic and romantic notion of life. The young person’s relationship with his environment was also a central theme in dramas of this period, including Arbu-zov’s Irkutsk Story (1959) and Factory Girl (1956) by A. M. Vo-lodin (born 1919).

Other poets who began publishing during these years wrote works uniquely elegaic and ironic in tone. Such works included the collection The String (1962) by B. A. Akhmadulina (born 1937), the collections The Little Ship (1963) and The Soul of Things (1966) by N. N. Matveeva (born 1934), and the collections Islands (1959) and The Merry Drummer (1964) by B. Sh. Okudzhava (born 1924).

A number of themes were prominent in the literature of the 1960’s. Sholokhov’s short story “Fate of a Man” (1957) depicted the fortitude of a Russian soldier who underwent incredible ordeals. The story inaugurated a revival of war prose, examples of which were the novel The Harsh Field (1958) by Kalinin and the novellas An Inch of Land (1959) by G. Ia. Bak-lanov (born 1923), The Last Salvos (1959) by Iu. V. Bondarev (born 1924), and The Tanks Are Advancing in Rhomboid Formation (1963) by A. Anan’ev (born 1925). Other prose works dealing with the war were the novellas The Dawns Here Are Quiet (1969) by B. L. Vasil’ev (born 1924) and The Shepherd and Shepherdess (1971) by V. P. Astaf’ev (born 1924) and the short story “Ivan” (1958) by V. M. Bogomolov (born 1926).

Works presenting a multithematic depiction of the Great Patriotic War were the novels The Outcome (1966) and Fate (1972) by P. L. Proskurin (born 1928), Sources (1959–67) by G. I. Konovalov (born 1908), Bondarev’s Hot Snow (1969), and The Blockade (1968–75) by A. B. Chakovskii (born 1913). An important contemporary work is Simonov’s trilogy The Quick and the Dead (1959–71), a war epic based on abundant factual material and on the author’s reflections about the recent tragic and heroic history of the Motherland. Works dealing with new aspects of the Great Patriotic War include Bogomolov’s In August of Forty-four (1974), Bondarev’s The Shore (1975), and War (1970–74) by I. F. Stadniuk (born 1920).

Major literary events of the 1950’s and 1960’s included the publication of new works by Sholokhov: the second part of the novel Virgin Soil Upturned (1955–60) and new chapters of the novel They Fought for the Motherland (1943–69). Many works published during this period dealt with various phases of Soviet history. Panova’s A Sentimental Novel (1958) was devoted to the NEP period, The Salty Dell (1967–68) by S. P. Zalygin (born 1913) to the Civil War, and Memory of the Earth (1961–70) by V. D. Fomenko (born 1911) to the early postwar years.

The history of the revolutionary struggle and of socialist construction in Siberia was memorably reflected in the destinies of the heroes of G. Markov’s novels The Salt of the Earth (1954–60), Father and Son (1963–64), and Siberia (1969–73). Other important works published during these years were the memoirs and fiction of such established masters as Ehrenburg, Paustovskii, Chukovskii, Marshak, Isakovskii, Kaverin, and V. B. Shklovskii (born 1893).

The political and spiritual development of contemporary life has resulted in increased attention to the theme of Lenin, which different writers have treated with varying degrees of historical and literary plausibility. Dramas dealing with Lenin have included Pogodin’s Third Pathétique (1959) and The Sixth of July (1966) by M. F. Shatrov (born 1932). Poetic works include Voz-nesenskii’s Longjumeau (1963) and Evtushenko’s The University of Kazan (1970). Recent prose works devoted to Lenin have been Shaginian’s novel and chronicle The Ul’ianov Family (1957), the novel The Flame Will Flare Up (1965–68) by A. L. Koptelov (born 1903), and the novellas The Blue Notebook (1961) by Kazakevich, The Small Iron Door in the Wall (1964) by Kataev, and Three Weeks of Rest (1967) by M. P. Prile-zhaeva (born 1903).

The theme of the countryside has remained important in the prose of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The best prose works reflecting this theme exhibit an exact knowledge of the language and life of the contemporary kolkhoz village and provide valuable analyses of its inhabitants’ life, character, and interrelationships. Such works reveal an appreciation of Russia’s natural beauty and of the poetry of peasant labor and the moral values based on this labor. These works include The Priasliny (separate edition, 1974) by F. A. Abramov (born 1920), Lipiagi (1963–65) by S. Krutilin (born 1921), and Rural Diary (1956–71) by E. Ia. Do-rosh (1908–72) and the novellas Money for Mariia (1967) by V. G. Rasputin (born 1937), A Usual Affair (1966) by V. I. Belov (born 1932), and Among the Reeds (1963) by G. N. Troepol’skii (born 1905).

Short stories and novellas dealing with the countryside have been written by Tendriakov, F. A. Iskander (born 1929), V. M. Shukshin (1929–74), E. I. Nosov (born 1925), and Astaf’ev. The literary tradition of the village sketch has been continued by L. I. Ivanov (born 1914) and G. G. Radov (1915–75). Epic narratives about Russian and Soviet villages have included The Cherry Whirlpool (1961), Bread Is a Noun (1964), and The Non-weeping Willow (1970) by M. N. Alekseev (born 1918) and Shadows Disappear at Noon (1963) and The Eternal Summons (1970) by A. S. Ivanov (born 1928).

The theme of the working class was vividly reflected in Ko-chetov’s novel The Ershov Brothers (1958). The novella Get Acquainted, Baluev! (1960) by V. M. Kozhevnikov (born 1909) was devoted to the story of an economic planner, an able leader of a large group. The problems of modern industry, the lives of workers, and relations among workers have been depicted in the novellas Large Ore (1961) by G. N. Vladimov (born 1931) and Kozhevnikov’s Petr Riabinkin (1968) and A Special Detachment (1969). Other works dealing with these themes are the novel You Gain It in Battle (1968) by V. F. Popov (born 1907) and the plays A Man From the Side (1972) by I. M. Dvo-retskii (born 1919) and Steelworkers (1973) by G. K. Bokarev (born 1934).

Soviet literature also deals with the life and work of scholars and scientists and with the moral problems of scholarly and scientific work. Examples are Granin’s novel I Am Going Into a Storm (1962) and the novella in the form of a sketch Thoughts and the Heart (1965) by N. M. Amosov (born 1913). The novellas The Exchange (1969) and Preliminary Results (1970) by Iu. V. Trifonov (born 1925) critically trace the transformation of the hero, a contemporary city dweller, into a philistine.

The works of N. P. Nosov (born 1908), N. I. Dubov (born 1910), Prilezhaeva, S. A. Baruzdin (born 1926), and A. N. Ry-bakov (born 1911) have marked new achievements in children’s literature.

Contemporary Russian literature expresses the movement of life and the complex spiritual experiences of modern man. It seeks an increasingly deeper comprehension of the world and attempts to master new means of literary expressiveness. Examples are Tvardovskii’s book From the Lyricism of These Years (1967) and Kataev’s novellas The Holy Well (1966) and The Grass of Oblivion (1967). A number of young writers have placed increasing stress on the intellect, as seen in the prose of A. G. Bitov (born 1937), V. I. Likhonosov (born 1936), and O. M. Kuvaev (1934–75), in the poetry of A. S. Kushner (born 1936) and N. M. Rubtsov (1936–71), and in the dramaturgy of A. V. Vampilov (1937–72). Socially oriented science fiction and Utopian novels have been written by I. A. Efremov (1907–72), A. N. Strugatskii (born 1925), and B. N. Strugatskii (born 1933). An example of recent historical fiction is Trifonov’s novella Impatience (1973).

The intensive process of building a socialist and communist society and the beginning of the period of mature socialism have led to profound, historically significant improvements in Soviet life and in the people’s relationships and spiritual life. These changes have engendered new elements in literature, which has come to depict socialist life in all its complexity and greatness. New works of fiction and drama realistically and from a party viewpoint deal with the past and present of the Soviet people. These works focus on the important problems of communist upbringing and construction.

The CPSU calls upon writers to adhere to Leninist principles of party and national spirit; it advocates a diversity and abundance of forms and styles, developed on the basis of socialist realism. The party values the talent of writers, the communist ideology of their works, and the opposition of writers to everything hindering the progress of socialist society. In literary criticism, the party advocates a stronger focus on communist principles, as well as a combination of strictness with tact and sensitivity in relation to writers.

The growing role of literature in the building of communism was noted in the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU On Literary Criticism (1972), which appealed for a high ideological and aesthetic level in Soviet literature and consistent opposition to bourgeois ideology. The resolution also advocated a bolder study of social changes, especially those connected with the scientific and technological revolution, which has influenced contemporary morality and contemporary man. Soviet literary theory and criticism are devoting more profound analysis to Soviet literature and its prospective development.

Soviet Russian literature is the literature of socialist realism and the herald of friendship among peoples and of lofty communist ideals. Together with the other fraternal literatures of the Soviet Union, it has influenced the literatures of other countries and continues to do so. The works of Gorky and Mayakov-sky and of A. Tolstoy, Sholokhov, Tvardovskii, Fadeev, Leo-nov, and many other Soviet writers have become Soviet classics, have gained worldwide renown, and have become a permanent part of the world’s cultural heritage.

Soviet Russian literature has established firm ties with the literatures of the other socialist states and in cooperation with these literatures is striving for a socialist culture. Soviet literature has gained the sympathy of readers in many other countries because it depicts the heroism and greatness of the struggle for liberty and justice and for peace and communism. The merit and worldwide importance of Soviet Russian literature lie in its truthful, historically accurate depiction of life in its revolutionary development, its defense of the loftiest ideals of mankind, and its genuine humanism.


Marx, K., and F. Engels. Ob iskusstve, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1967.
Lenin, V. I. O literature i iskusstve, 4th ed. Moscow, 1969.
Belinskii, V. G. Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–13. Moscow, 1953–59.
Herzen, A. I. O literature. Moscow, 1962.
Pisarev, D. I. Soch, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1955–56.
Chernyshevskii, N. G. Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–16. Moscow, 1939–53.
Dobroliubov, N. A. Sobr. soch., vols. 1–9. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961–64.
Plekhanov, G. V. Literatura iestetika, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1958.
Vorovskii, V. V. Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i. Moscow, 1956.
Lunacharskii, A. V. Sobr. soch., vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1963–64.
Gorky, M. O literature. Moscow, 1953.
Gorky, M. Pis’ma o literature. Moscow, 1957.
Pypin, A. P. Istoriia russkoi literatury, 4th ed., vols. 1–4. St. Petersburg, 1911–13.
Vengerov, S. A. Ocherki po istorii russkoi literatury, 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1907.
Istoriia russkoi literatury, vols. 1–10. Moscow-Leningrad, 1941–56.
Istoriia russkoi literatury, vols. 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958–64.
Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki i kritiki, vols. 1–2. Leningrad, 1950–65.
Istoriia russkoi kritiki, vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958.
Chicherov, V. I. Russkoe narodnoe tvorchestvo. Moscow, 1959.
Azadovskii, M. K. Istoriia russkoi fol’kloristiki, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1958–63.
Propp, V. Ia. “Zhanrovyi sostav russkogo fol’klora.” Russkaia literatura, 1964, no. 4.
Russkoe narodnoe tvorchestvo: Posobie dliavuzov. Moscow, 1966.
Old Russian literature
Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, vols. 1–28. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934–74.
Orlov, A. S. Drevniaia russkaia literatura XI-XVII vv. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945.
Adrianova-Peretts, V. P. Ocherki poeticheskogo stilia drevnei Rusi. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Adrianova-Peretts, V. P. Russkaia demokraticheskaia satira XVII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1954.
Likhachev, D. S. Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Likhachev, D. S. Chelovek v literature drevnei Rusi, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1970.
Likhachev, D. S. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1971.
Likhachev, D. S. Razvitie russkoi literatury X – XVII vv.: Epokhi i stili. Leningrad, 1973.
Gudzii, N. K. Istoriia drevnei russkoi literatury, 7th ed. Moscow, 1966.
Eremin, I. P. Literatura drevnei Rusi (Etiudy i kharakteristiki). Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Istoki russkoi belletristiki: Vozniknovenie zhanrov siuzhetnogo povestvovaniia v drevnerusskoi literature: Sb. Leningrad, 1970.
Eighteenth century
Gukovskii, G. A. Russkaia poeziia XVIII v. Leningrad, 1927.
Gukovskii, G. A. Russkaia literatura XVIII v. Moscow, 1939.
Berkov, P. N. Istoriia russkoi zhurnalistiki XVIII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1952.
Blagoi, D. D. Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII v., 4th ed. Moscow, 1960.
Rol’ i znachenie literatury XVIII v. v istorii russkoi kul’tury. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Kulakova, L. I. Ocherki istorii russkoi esteticheskoi mysli XVIII v. Leningrad, 1968.
Serman, I. Z. Russkii klassitsizm. Leningrad, 1973.
XVIII vek: Sb., fascs. 1–9. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935–74.
Nineteenth century
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v., vols. 1–5. Edited by D. N. Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii. Moscow, 1908–10.
O russkom realizme XIX v. i voprosakh narodnosti literatury: Sb. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960.
Pospelov, G. N. Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v., 2nd ed. Moscow, 1972.
Fokht, U. Puti russkogo realizma. Moscow, 1963.
Problemy tipologii russkogo realizma: Sb. Moscow, 1969.
Sokolov, A. N. Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v., 3rd ed. Moscow, 1970.
The 20th century (prior to 1917)
Russkaia literatura XX v., vols. 1–3. Edited by S. A. Vengerov. Moscow, 1914–16.
Muratova, K. D. Vozniknovenie sotsialisticheskogo realizma v russkoi literature. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Russkaia literatura kontsa XIX–nach. XX vv.: Devianostye gody. Moscow, 1968.
Russkaia literatura kontsa XIX-nach. XX vv., 1901–1907. Moscow, 1971.
Russkaia literatura kontsa XIX—nach. XX vv., 1908–1917. Moscow, 1972.
Soviet Russian literature
Opartiinoi i sovetskoi pechati: Sb. dokumentov. Moscow, 1954.
KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh i resheniiakh s”ezdov, konferentsii iplenumov TsK, 8th ed., vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1970.
Materialy XXIV s”ezda KPSS. Moscow, 1971.
Pervyi Vsesoiuznyi s”ezd sovetskikh pisatelei: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1934.
Vtoroi Vsesoiuznyi s”ezd sovetskikh pisatelei: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1956.
Tretii s”ezd pisatelei SSSR: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1959.
Chetvertyi s”ezdpisatelei SSSR: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1968.
Piatyi s”ezdpisatelei SSSR: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1972.
Pervyi Uchreditel’nyi s”ezd pisatelei Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1959.
Vtoroi s”ezd pisatelei RSFSR: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1966.
Tretii s”ezd pisatelei RSFSR: Stenograficheskii otchet. Moscow, 1972.
Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi literatury, 1917–1965, 2nd ed. revised and supplemented, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1967–71.
Ocherki istorii russkoi sovetskoi zhurnalistiki, 1917–1932. Moscow, 1966.
Ocherki istorii russkoi sovetskoi zhurnalistiki, 1933–1945. Moscow, 1968.
Istoriia russkogo sovetskogo romana, books 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965.
Sovetskie pisateli: Avtobiografii, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1959–66.
Fadeev, A. A. Za tridtsat’ let: Izbrannye stat’i, rechi i pis’ma o literature. Moscow, 1957.
Fedin, K. A. Pisatel’, iskusstvo, vremia. Moscow, 1957.
Tvardovskii, A. T. Stat’i i zametki o literature. Moscow, 1957.
Tolstoy, A. N. “Chetvert’ veka sovetskoi literatury.” Sobr. soch., vol. 10. Moscow, 1961.
“Gor’kii i sovetskie pisateli: Neizdannaia perepiska.” In Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 70. Moscow, 1963.
Ozerov, V. Polveka sovetskoi literatury. Moscow, 1967.
Andreev, Iu. Revoliutsiia i literatura, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1975.
Literatura i sovremennost’, collections 1–12. Moscow, 1960–73.
Russian and Soviet literature abroad
Gudzii, N. K. Mirovoe znachenie russkoi literatury. Moscow, 1944.
Blagoi, D. D. Mirovoe znachenie russkoi klassicheskoi literatury. Moscow, 1948.
Mezhdunarodnye sviazi russkoi literatury. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Bursov, B. Natsional’noe svoeobrazie russkoi literatury, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1967.
Motyleva, T. L. Glazami druzei i vragov: Sovetskaia literatura za rubezhom. Moscow, 1967.
Bibliographies of Russian and Soviet literature
Vladislavlev, I. V. Russkie pisateli: Opyt bibliograficheskogo posobiia po russkoi literature XIX-XX stoletii, 4th ed. Moscow-Leningrad, 1924.
Masanov, I. F. Slovar’psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obsh-chestvennykh deiatelei, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1956–60.
Russkaia periodicheskaia pechat’ (1702–1894): Spravochnik Moscow, 1959.
Russkaia periodicheskaia pechat’ (1895–0ctober 1917). Moscow, 1957.
Sovetskie detskie pisateli: Bibliograficheskii slovar’ (1917–1957). Moscow, 1961.
Bibliografiia sovetskikh russkikh rabot po literature Xl–XVII vv. za 1917–1957 gg. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961.
Tarasenkov, An. Russkie poety XX veka, 1900–1955: Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1966.
Mel’ts, M. Ia. Russkii fol’klor: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’, 1917–1944. Leningrad, 1967.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Edited by P. N. Berkov. Leningrad, 1968.
Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX v.: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Edited by K. D. Muratova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
Istoriia russkoi literatury kontsa XIX–nach. XX veka: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Edited by K. D. Muratova. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Soviet literature: criticism
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1938–1948: Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1952.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1949–1951. Moscow, 1953.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1952–1953. Moscow, 1954.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvannaia literatura i kritika, 1954–1955. Moscow, 1957.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1956–1957. Moscow, 1959.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1958–1959. Moscow, 1962.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1960–61. Moscow, 1964.
Matsuev, N. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia literatura i kritika, 1962–1963. Moscow, 1970.
Sovetskoe literaturovedenie i kritika. Russkaia sovetskaia literatura. Knigi i stat’i, 1917–1962 godov: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow, 1966.
Sovetskoe literaturovedenie i kritika. Russkaia sovetskaia literatura. Knigi i stat’i, 1963–1967 godov: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’. Moscow, 1970.
Russkie sovetskie pisateli-prozaiki: Biobibliograficheskii ukazatel’, vols. 1–7. Leningrad-Moscow, 1959–72.

Earliest period. The development of art in what is now the RSFSR has been traced back to the Paleolithic. Settlements of that period consisted of pit and semipit houses and included Kostenki and Gagarino in the European RSFSR and Mal’ta and Buret’ in Irkutsk Oblast. Artifacts from such settlements included naturalistic female figurines carved from stone and bone, various representations of animals and birds (statuettes, horn and bone carvings, wall paintings in Kapova Cave in the Urals), ornamental bone bracelets (Mezin site), and beads (Sungir’ site).

The various types of Neolithic remains reflect numerous local differences. During the Neolithic aboveground structures were widespread, and pile settlements appeared. The production of ornamental ceramics also developed. Figurines of elks and bears made by hunters of the Lake Onega region and Siberia reveal the artists’ keen powers of observation. At the Gorbu-novo peat bog, a site near Nizhnii Tagil, were found carved wooden dippers and spoons whose forms are combined in a remarkably harmonious way with depictions of birds and animals. Among the outstanding examples of Neolithic art are the petroglyphs found at the Besov Nos and Zalavruga sites in Karelia. The petroglyphs include both representations of individual human and animal figures and entire compositions (hunting scenes, magic rituals, and sun symbols).

The Aeneolithic Period and the Bronze Age were marked by the spread of log dwellings, barrows (kurgans), and—in the Kuban’ region—monolithic dolmens. The ornamentation of ceramics was more lavish, employing sun symbols and human and animal figures. Monumental stone sculpture developed: steles with depictions of people, animals, and imaginary beings have been found in the Minusinsk Basin. Also discovered from this period were cast bronze weapons, tools, and figurines with representational and nonrepresentational ornamentation. The gold statuettes of bulls and the silver vessel engraved with various scenes and animal figures found in the Maikop kurgan (late third millennium B.C.) indicate that ties with the civilizations of the ancient Orient had developed at this time.

Art from the transitional period between the Bronze and Iron ages is represented by the artifacts of the Koban culture (northern Caucasus), which include gracefuly shaped axes with engraving, cast representations of deer and people, and animal-shaped belt buckles.

During the disintegration of the primitive communal order and the formation of tribal associations, from the eighth or seventh century B.C. to the first centuries of the Common Era, settlements surrounded by a rampart and palisade became widespread in the Oka, Kama, and Belaia river basins. Huge barrows were common, particularly in regions settled by the Scythians. The expressively stylized animal style became popular, as seen in Scythian gold objects (insignia in the form of carved figurines of deer and panther) found in barrows of the Kuban’ region. The animal style prevailed in the gold, wood, leather, and felt articles found in the Pazyryk kurgans of the Altai and the realistic figurines and stylized images of animals found in Western Siberia (Ust’-Polui) and the Kama region.

As time passed an interest in depicting the human form developed in a number of regions. A Scythian rhyton from the Karagodeuashkh was decorated with figurines of hero-gods, and a silver vessel found in the Voronezh Chastye Kurgany (Dense Barrows) is embellished with scenes from everyday life. The Tashtyk culture of the Minusinsk Basin produced portrait burial masks, and the gravestones of the Anan’ino culture in the Kama region had depictions of dead chieftains. The interest in portraying the human body was manifested most strongly in regions culturally influenced by ancient cities of the Northern Black Sea region.

The transition from the culture of antiquity to that of the Middle Ages—a process that extended throughout the first millennium A.D.—was characterized by the emergence of new tribal alliances and state formations, which served as the basis for the further development of art. The tribal alliance of the Alani led to the establishment in the eighth and ninth centuries of settlements with stone fortifications in the Don region. Ornamentation in the polychromatic style, inherited from the Sarmatians, prevailed from the first through ninth centuries. In the tenth, 11th, and 12th centuries metal objects were embellished with stamped designs. Surviving artifacts of the Kirghiz Kaganate in Khakassia (sixth to 13th centuries) include the delicately ornamented gold vessels and bronze saddle ornaments carved in relief found in the Kopeny chaatas. The decoration of the saddle ornaments include a hunting scene dynamically portraying animals and a bowman. In Bolgar—the capital of Bolgariia Volga-Kama (Bulgaria on the Volga)—mosques, mausoleums, and other buildings were constructed between the tenth and 15th centuries. Under the Khazar Khanate (seventh to tenth centuries), Byzantine craftsmen erected structures in the city of Sarkel (near present-day Tsimliansk).

The art of the tribes in the forest zone of European Russia during the first millennium A.D. is chiefly represented by the ornamental clasps with colored enamelwork produced by the ancestors of the present-day Baltic peoples. Finno-Ugric tribes produced horse- and bird-shaped pendants, which were hung on chains.

The remains of Slavic tribes that settled in the forest zone by the tenth century included semispherical burial mounds, gorodishcha (ancient fotified settlements), and selishcha (ancient unfortified settlements). A particularly noteworthy tenth-century cultic monument of the Slavs is the Peryn’ sanctuary near Novgorod. In the form of an eight-petal rosette, the sanctuary had in its center a wooden statue of the God Perun (statue no longer extant). Ancient Russian urban culture took shape during the ninth and tenth centuries.

The art of ancient Rus’ flourished between the tenth and 13th centuries. It arose out of Eastern and Southern European medieval culture, whose traditions had formed in Byzantium. Ancient Russian art developed what it had adopted from this culture, including stone architecture, certain forms of Christian churches, and various genres and techniques of painting (frescoes, mosaics, icons, book illuminations). Russian art, which also succeeded in giving new life to local traditions, developed in the numerous towns that arose throughout the vast territory between northwestern Novgorod Land and the Taman’ Peninsula. In a number of cities, including Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, and Polotsk, monumental cathedrals were built (the 13-cupola Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev and the more severe Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod), as were stone fortifications and palaces. Numerous works of both fine and applied art were produced.

During the period of feudal fragmentation in the 12th century, the role of local schools of Russian art increased, particularly the Novgorod school and the Vladimir-Suzdal’ school. The Novgorod school introduced an epic style of painting, unique forms of religious structures (such as the Cathedral of St. George at the Iur’ev Monastery), and single-domed three-apsed churches (such as Nereditsa). The Vladimir-Suzdal’ school is noted for its white stone cathedrals full of nobility and grace (such as Uspenskii Cathedral and the Cathedral of St. Dmitrii in Vladimir and the Church of Pokrov on the Nerl’) and for its works of painting and decorative sculpture. Caches of jewelry were found and included kolty (hollow metal pendants attached to a headdress) and bracelets of linked silver plates. The jewelry was made using the techniques of enameling, niello, and filigree. Carved wooden objects (figurines, utensils) have been discovered in excavations at Novgorod and Staraia Ladoga. The artistic handicrafts of the Old Russian village are presented by bronze and silver ornaments, such as temple bands and grivny (metal bands worn on the neck).

Late 13th through 17th centuries. The development of ancient Russian art was interrupted by the Mongol-Tatar invasion but was revived late in the 13th century, when it became known as Russian art proper and its development paralleled that of Ukrainian and Byelorussian art.

From the late 13th through 15th centuries, the Novgorod school experienced an upsurge, developing a unique type of single-domed church with walls ending in trefoil gables or pointed steeples. The churches are noted for their remarkable 14th-century frescoes (for example, those of Theophanes the Greek in the Spasa na Il’ine Church), icon paintings, book illuminations, and sculpture. Icon painting in Novgorod, which reached its zenith in the 15th century, reflected urban tastes. Motifs from folklore and daily life were sometimes used in book illumination and sculpture.

The independent Pskov school assumed a leading position in Russian art. Its architecture was characterized by small churches (such as the Church of St. Basil From the Mount) with picturesque belfries, porches, and galleries. Town fortifications were erected in Novgorod and Pskov. In the late 13th and the 14th century fortresses were built in northwestern regions (Ko-por’e, Izborsk, and elsewhere). Local schools of painting developed in Rostov, Yaroslavl, Tver’, and Vologda.

However, beginning in the 14th century Moscow, which was the central force in the unification of the Russian lands, gradually became the center of Russian architecture and art. The Moscow Kremlin was enclosed by turreted walls of oak (1339) and, later, of white stone (1367). The posad (merchants’ and artisans’ quarter), consisting of wooden buildings, developed east of the Kremlin. The 14th-century white stone cathedrals of Moscow (including the Uspenskii Cathedral in the Kremlin, 1327), none of which has survived, imitated the style of pre-Mongol Vladimir cathedrals. In the late 14th and early 15th centuries, Moscow churches became more balanced and festive in appearance, owing to the use of kokoshniki (a series of cor-belled-out, round or pointed arches arranged in tiers) at the base of the drum. The kokoshniki, like the zakomary (the parapet over the extrados of the vaulting) and the recessed portals, rose to a fin-shaped point (for example, Uspenskii Cathedral in Zvenigorod). Also at this time, for purposes of defense, a number of monasteries were built at the main strategic approaches to Moscow.

With the formation of a centralized Russian state by the second half of the 15th century, powerful creative forces capable of giving Russian artistic culture new scope concentrated in Moscow. Russian art had no Renaissance. But many elements of such an era—the use of secular elements in architecture, a trend toward human exaltation in painting, and a capacity to assimilate the experience of the Italian Renaissance masters—permit the evaluation of this period in Russia as a kind of parallel movement within the overall framework of medieval culture.

In the last quarter of the 15th and the early 16th century, the Moscow Kremlin was expanded to its present dimensions. Its ring of brick walls with 18 towers, embrasures, and swallow-tailed crenels was erected, and its cathedral ensemble took shape. During the 16th century the ever-expanding posad was walled by three lines of fortifications (the stone walls of Kitai-gorod and Belyi Gorod and the embankments and wooden walls of Zemlianoi Gorod) and took on a distinct layout of circular and radial streets.

Muscovite architecture of the 16th century produced a new type of stone cathedral consisting of a tower and tent-shaped roof (for example, Voznesenie Church in Kolomenskoe, the church of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist in D’iakovskoe, and St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow). In addition, four-pierced, five-domed cathedrals were built, such as the cathedral of the Novodevichii Convent. Stone construction was also vigorously pursued in other centers of the Russian state. Kremlins were erected in Nizhny Novgorod, Tula, Kolomna, Zaraisk, Smolensk, and Serpukhov. In the north the construction of monasteries (such as the Kirill-Belozersk and Solovetskii monasteries), stone churches, and stone dwellings (such as the Palace Chamber in Uglich) proceeded apace. On the whole, wood predominated in secular architecture. Wood construction also characterized the numerous village churches.

The onset of the 15th century was heralded by an upsurge of painting in Moscow. Theophanes the Greek, Prokhor of Goro-dets, Daniil Chernyi, and Andrei Rublev were working in the city at that time. Rublev’s frescoes for Uspenskii Cathedral in Vladimir are imbued with a trust in and a love for humanity. The perfection of line and harmony of pure colors in Rublev’s famous icon Trinity express the work’s exalted human content. Outstanding works of sculpture were also produced in the 15 th century, for example, numerous carved and painted wooden icons and V. D. Ermolin’s stone reliefs.

In late-15th-century and early-16th-century painting the style of Dionisii and his school prevailed. A festive, triumphal mood combines with elegant line and color in the icons depicting the lives of saints and the wall paintings in the Ferapontov Monastery. In the 16th century the harmonious balance and spiritual grandeur of painting gave way to allegory and didacticism and to an attempt to relate icon painting to events of the day. For example, the icon The Fighting Church was painted on the occasion of the taking of Kazan. Secular motifs appeared in book illumination, as seen in the Illustrated Codex of Chronicles (1540–1560’s). Book printing provided a basis for Russian engraving (for example, woodcuts for the Acts of the Apostles, 1564). At the turn of the 17th century the Stroganov school of icon painting developed, which was noted for its miniaturist style. Old traditions (the “Godunov manner”) were also preserved.

Secular tendencies increased in 17th-century Russian art. The tastes of the merchant and artisan populations began to be reflected, and folk and decorative elements appeared. As the Russian state expanded, new towns and fortresses were built in the south and in Siberia (Yakutsk). Towns with livelihoods based on trade and handicrafts developed in the north and along the Volga. New stone commercial and administrative structures were built there (for example, the Merchants’ Arcade in Arkhangel’sk), as were numerous churches (for example, the Church of St. John the Baptist in Tolchkovo, Yaroslavl). Stone edifices with commercial space on the ground floor and living space on the upper stories were also built (for example, the Po-gankin Palace and the Lapin house in Pskov, the lavishly decorated Korobovs house in Kaluga, and the Averkii Kirillov house in Moscow). While retaining medieval layouts, housing architecture adopted certain motifs from classicistic ornament. Colorful, “lacy” facade decoration—including carved inlays and raised, sometimes brightly painted, brick facing—became characteristic of 17th-century parish churches (for example, Trinity Church in Nikitniki and the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in Putniki, Moscow).

At the end of the 17th century the Naryshkin style of architecture appeared (for example, the Church of Pokrov in Fili, now in Moscow). Buildings in the Naryshkin style, as well as Moscow’s secular buildings (Sukharev Tower), anticipated the architecture of the modern period. Nevertheless, in housing and church architecture (particularly wooden) medieval principles were retained not only in the 17th century (for example, the palace in Kolomenskoe, Moscow) but also, to some extent, in the years to follow (for example, the wooden churches in Kizhi).

In 17th-century monument painting there were strong tendencies toward narrative and realistic representation. The frescoes of the Yaroslavl and Kostroma painters who worked in the Volga region and Moscow during the second half of the 17th century resemble multicolored carpets depicting a multitude of realistic scenes and landscapes. Icon painting showed an increased use of shading and perspective (for example, the icons of Iosif Vladimirov and Simon Ushakov). A new painting genre—the parsuna (portrait)—appeared. A great deal of artistic experimentation took place in the Armory (Oruzheinaia Pala-ta), which became the country’s artistic center in the mid-17th century. There was also intensive development in the decorative and applied arts. However, many ancient traditions were continued in jewelry-making, metalcraft, enameling, wood carving, stone carving, needlework, block printing, and ceramics.

During the Middle Ages, the culture of many peoples of the North and Siberia remained at a primitive level. The peoples of the Volga region, who were at a higher cultural level, developed their own wooden architecture, needlework, wood carving, and—in Tataria and Bashkiria—religious and secular stone architecture. After the Volga region became part of Russia, the influence of Russian artistic culture was felt. Churches were built in the northern Caucasus (in the valley of the Bol’shoi Zel-enchuk River and elsewhere) until the 12th century. Thereafter, Muslim religious structures were built, and a type of mountain settlement was developed, with stone houses built on terraces and having towers for living quarters and for defense. Metal-craft reached a high level in the northern Caucasus.

Eighteenth through first half of the 19th century. At the onset of the 18th century Russian art underwent a marked transition from the protracted medieval period to the modern age. Secular forms and genres of art became dominant; their rise was related to the task of strengthening an absolutist state that was reaching an advanced European level of development.

Cultural ties with Western Europe were increased, with many foreign artists coming to Russia and many Russian artists and craftsmen training in Europe. In 1757 an academy of arts similar to European academies was founded in St. Petersburg. Eighteenth-century Russian art underwent its own historical revolution, becoming imbued with ideas of the Enlightenment. To some extent, the Renaissance discovery of the beauty of the real world and the value of the individual as a “doer” may be seen in 18th-century Russian art.

Beginning in the late 17th century, urban construction assumed enormous importance owing to new economic, political, and military needs. Factory-towns were established in the Urals (Nev’iansk, Ekaterinburg), and fortress-towns along Russia’s southern and northwestern borders (Taganrog, Kronstadt). The towns were based on a regular street plan. The largest was St. Petersburg, whose layout was based on three “rays” of streets converging toward the Admiralty building. Many of the new capital’s distinctive features resulted from the combination of streets, architecture, and expanses of water. The city consisted of standardized dwellings based on “model” designs that varied for different classes of the urban population. Palaces were built both in the city and on its outskirts (for example, Petrodvorets).

The style of buildings changed noticeably in Petrine times. New types of public buildings were erected, first in Moscow (for example, the Arsenal in the Kremlin, the theater and library on Red Square, triumphal arches) and then in other cities, particularly St. Petersburg.

Russian architecture developed within the overall system of European styles. Baroque became popular in the early 18th century. Initially associated with the traditions of 17th-century architecture (Menshikov Tower in Moscow), it soon developed into a clear, rational style with restrained ornament. The mid-18th century was dominated by magnificent Russian baroque palace architecture, in which imaginative architecture solutions were combined with clear spatial organization. The abundance and opulence of plastic form were combined with keen attention to detail and finishing. The most characteristic Russian baroque palaces were designed by V. V. Rastrelli and include the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg and the Tsarskoe Selo complex in the present-day city of Pushkin.

The transition to classicism in the 1760’s and 1770’s was heralded by the buildings of A. F. Kokorinov, J. B. Vallin de la Mothe, and A. Rinaldi. Particularly brilliant was the architecture of V. I. Bazhenov, whose work in Moscow included the Pashkov house, the Tsaritsyno complex, and the reconstruction plan for the Kremlin. In Bazhenov’s work imaginative baroque compositional plasticity and an emotional, intensely romantic element blend harmoniously with the civic spirit and the exaltation of human reason characteristic of classicism.

Russian architecture developed classicistic forms until the mid-19th century. Urban construction flourished, and a unified stylistic system was adopted by all sectors of architecture, including the work of folk craftsmen. There was intensive development of public construction, in which the civic ideals characteristic of classicism were most fully embodied. More than 400 plans for the reconstruction of Russian cities were produced by the Commission on Stone Architecture for St. Petersburg and Moscow, whose architectural department was headed by Al. V. Kvasov from 1763 and by I. E. Starov from 1772.

New regular street plans were integrated with the cities’ historical layout and old structures. A combined tri-radial and grid plan was introduced in Tver’ (present-day Kalinin) and Yaroslavl, and a fan layout was designed for Kostroma. Projects for the creation of a city center, esplanades, and public squares were carried out in St. Petersburg in accordance with the General Plan drawn up by Kvasov between 1763 and 1769. The Smol’nyi Institute (architect G. Quarenghi), the Tauride Palace (architect Starov), and the Public Library (architect E. T. Sokolov) assumed an important place in the architectural layout of St. Petersburg.

Under the General Plan for Moscow (1775–90) the city’s streets were straightened, the center was built up, and a circular boulevard replaced the walls surrounding the Belyi Gorod. Moscow’s silhouette was transformed. M. F. Kazakov’s Senate building in the Kremlin was visually incorporated into the composition of Red Square, and Moscow University beautified the center of the city. Moscow’s beauty was enhanced by numerous nobly proportioned residences and churches with expressive colonnades and porticoes.

In the provincial cities there was widespread construction of dwellings, public administrative buildings, stores, schools, meeting houses for the nobility, theaters, and churches. The large suburban palaces, with their trim and austere architecture and their landscape parks, formed a new kind of lyrical composition (for example, the structures by G. Quarenghi, C. Cameron, A. Rinaldi, V. F. Brenna, N. A. L’vov, and others in Tsarskoe Selo, Pavlovsk, and Gatchina).

In the first decades of the 19th century classicism in urban construction assumed greater scope. Developing the forms of the Empire style, architecture acquired a sense of grandeur. This was especially evident after Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, when the heroic, triumphal mood of architecture was intensified by an upsurge in patriotism. Simple and powerful solid masses, whose strength was heightened by the use of Ionic colonnades, emerged from a background of smooth walls. The lavish sculptural embellishment (figures of victory, chariots, armatures, and wreaths) further emphasized the triumphant mood.

The first tendencies toward the Empire style appeared in the architecture of A. N. Voronikhin and A. D. Zakharov. Voron-khin’s works in St. Petersburg, such as the Kazan Cathedral and the Mining Institute, strongly influenced subsequent construction in the city. The Admiralty building, rebuilt by Zakharov, was one of the most outstanding structures in St. Petersburg. The Exchange building (architect J. Thomas de Thomon), with two rostral columns, on the spit of Vasil’evskii Island completed the architectural ensemble along the banks of the Neva River.

During the Patriotic War of 1812, K. I. Rossi built a number of notable complexes in the center of St. Petersburg. These included Palace Square, the ensemble comprising Ostrovskii Square and Rossi Street, and Arts Square. A. A. Montferrand and V. P. Stasov designed buildings for Senate Square (now Decembrists’ Square) and the Field of Mars.

Extensive reconstruction was carried out in Moscow after the fire of 1812. O. I. Bove’s plans were used in laying out the squares that form a half-circle around the Kremlin. Large public buildings were restored, rebuilt, or built anew. However, the character of Moscow was defined by small, comfortable private dwellings, which were often built of wood and stucco (designed by Bove, D. I. Zhiliardi, and A. G. Grigor’ev). Public and administrative buildings were also constructed in provincial cities (such as the university in Kazan).

During the reign of Nicholas I, the building of garrisons, storage depots, and hospitals predominated. The universal application of “model” projects introduced a bureaucratic monotony into urban architecture. Moreover, by the mid-19th century architecture lost its civic inspiration, and classicism entered a period of crisis.

The changes experienced by the pictorial arts in the late 17th and early 18th centuries were particularly profound. Icon painting and church frescoes gave way to secular painting and engraving (chiefly views and battle scenes) and to sculpture—an art which in many ways was forming anew. Russian artists, with their characteristic thirst for knowledge, adopted Western European realism. Also popular was decorative art, which both conveyed the sensual beauty of the real world and served to glorify the state (reliefs, carvings, park sculpture, decorations for holiday and victory celebrations, and decorative murals). Of major significance in Russian art, as it broke with the Middle Ages, was its new perception of man. The first Russian portrait painters of the 18th century, such as A. M. Matveev and I. N. Nikitin, retained the image of the energetic, creative man of Petrine times. Portraiture using the techniques of the baroque formal portrait was common (L. Caravacque). A style tending toward linear precision yet combined with a direct and somewhat naïve perception of the world characterized the paintings of I. Ia. Vishniakov, I. P. Argunov, and A. P. Antropov. The greatest achievements of sculpture in the early 18th century were in portraiture (B. K. Rastrelli).

Russian portrait art developed further in the late 18th century. F. S. Rokotov’s portrait paintings subtly conveyed the spiritualized inner life of the subjects. D. G. Levitskii painted portraits marked by life-affirming strength and precise, profound characterization. V. L. Borovikovskii combined the classicistic idea of man with motifs reflecting sentimentalism. The sculpture F.I. Shubin produced essentially classicistic portraits with vivid and varied characterization conveying real human traits.

The 18th century marked the beginnings of Russian historical painting (A. P. Losenko, I. A. Akimov, G. I. Ugriumov) and genre painting (I. Firsov, M. Shibanov, I. A. Ermenev). Landscape painting, developing in association with the tradition of the topographical picture, was enriched by an emotional perception of motif (M. I. Makhaev and M. M. Ivanov). At the same time, the decorative landscape (Sem. F. Shchedrin) took on a more serious character, and the cityscape, imbued with a sense of poetic beauty, developed (views of St. Petersburg by F. Ia. Alekseev). In engraving, landscapes and portraits were also popular (E. P. Chemesov, G. I. Skorodumov).

The period of classicism proved a high point in the development of Russian sculpture, which portrayed the harmonious and beautiful individual within lyrical and heroic-dramatic motifs (I. P. Prokof’ev, M. I. Kozlovskii). The marble and bronze funerary monuments by F. G. Gordeev and I. P. Martos are characterized by depth and nobility of feelings. The integration of sculpture, particularly reliefs and statues, into architectural compositions was especially widespread in the first three decades of the 19th century (sculpture by F. F. Shchedrin, V. I. De-mut-Malinovskii, S. S. Pimenov). Monumental sculpture, expressive of exalted heroism, was an important element in Russian urban architectural complexes (such as monuments in St. Petersburg and Moscow by E.-M. Falconet, Kozlovskii, Martos, and B. I. Orlovskii).

Because of the crisis undergone by classicism as the universal “style of the age,” the historical-artistic process in the first half of the 19th century became stratified. Thus, historical painting (A. I. Ivanov and A. E. Egorov), fettered by the conventions and ideological traditions of classicism, was incapable of responding directly to events of the Patriotic War of 1812. Yet the graphic art produced during the war years gave birth to a movement of satirical journalism, which was oriented toward life and borrowed devices from the art of lubok (cheap popular prints). Prominent graphic artists included A. O. Orlovskii and A. G. Venetsianov.

The advent of romanticism, which eschewed civic zeal for the state and expressed growing individual consciousness, was linked first and foremost with portraiture. The individual’s naturalness of character and freedom of feeling are reflected in the paintings of O. A. Kiprenskii, who recorded man in a state of inward exaltation and inspiration, and in the lyrical, intimate works of V. A. Tropinin. K. P. Briullov, a painter of bravura formal portraits, attained profound psychological analysis in his later, intimate portraits.

A growing interest in national and folk motifs was reflected either in the exaltedly idyllic images or faithfully characteristic portraits created by Venetsianov and his school. This school made man’s surroundings and everyday life a theme of art. The romanticists’ concept of man as the hero of a historical drama was embodied in huge canvases that served as major expressions of the intellectual life of society. Examples of such works are Briullov’s The Last Day of Pompeii (1830–33, Russian Museum) and A. A. Ivanov’s The Appearance of Christ Before the People (1837–57, Tret’iakov Gallery).

The romantic period was marked by the rise of landscape art tending toward emotional imagery. The paintings rendered a unity of color and space in the natural environment, which was viewed as being spiritualized by the presence of man. This trend is seen in Sil. F. Shchedrin’s lyrical Italian landscapes, which are filled with a sense of serene happiness. Plein-air tendencies characterize the painting of M. I. Lebedev, and, even more strongly, the landscapes of Ivanov, who strove to create a majestic and integral picture of the world. However, by the mid-19th century, landscape painting was dominated by romantic academicism’s penchant for external effects (for example, the work of M. N. Vorob’ev).

In the mid-19th century, genre painting became the principal art form. Its masters turned to the actual events of life, adopting the critical tendencies and feeling for typicality found in satirical graphic art of that time (for example, A. A. Agin and E. E. Bernardskii’s albums of Gogolian characters). In the paintings of P. A. Fedotov the exposure of social and moral vices is combined with an appreciation of the poetry of everyday life. The theme of the tragic hopelessness of man’s situation in a hostile world appears in Fedotov’s later work.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries decorative art developed within the overall system of artistic styles and displayed a close connection with architecture. Leading artists and folk craftsmen produced opulent decorations for 18th-century baroque buildings (wood carvings, stuccowork, and murals). Many prominent architects and artists produced works of decorative art during the classicistic period. For example, Iu. M. Fel’ten and P. E. Egorov designed the metal fence of the St. Petersburg Summer Garden, and objects of colored stone were designed by Quarenghi, Voronikhin, and others. The beginnings of Russian porcelain and the flourishing of artistic glass-making date back to the mid-18th century. Carving in bone was developed in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Folk art represented a special branch of the plastic arts. Closely connected with the needs of peasant life, it rested on traditions deeply rooted in antiquity. Folk art included the carving of wooden toys (seeBOGORODSKOE WOOD CARVING), ceramics (seeGZHEL’ CERAMICS), lace-making (seeVOLOGDA LACE and ELETS LACE), embroidery, and the painting of wooden spoons and turned vessels.

Late 19th through early 20th centuries. Russia’s development along capitalist lines in the late 19th century did much to change the nature of artistic life and the relationship between the various arts. The rise of the revolutionary movement increasingly influenced the country’s artistic culture.

In the late 19th century architecture lost some of its aesthetic significance. However, there was intensive development of new types of structures to meet economic and social needs. There was also wide use of new building materials, particularly metal interstory spans for large buildings. Industrial and transport structures were built. The design of banks, hospitals, hotels, and other commercial and administrative buildings employed functional plans. Rent-producing multiple dwellings, varying in degree of comfort for different economic categories of tenants, become typical of large cities. The growing cities bore the brunt of uncontrolled capitalist development, and workers’ barracks and slum districts dotted the outskirts of cities. City planning declined, and attempts to find aesthetic solutions in architecture by using motifs from “historical styles” or the “Russian style” were superseded by over-stylization and eclecticism.

In the early 20th century new ideas for city planning were introduced; for example, V. N. Semenov’s plans for garden cities, I. A. Fomin’s plans for new districts in St. Petersburg, and L. N. Benois’s plan for the partial reconstruction of St. Petersburg. Lacking solutions to social problems, however, the urban designs of progressive architects remained largely utopian.

At the turn of the 20th century, art nouveau brought certain changes to the appearance of the cities. The style was most widely used in the design of private homes and luxury apartment buildings (architects F. O. Shekhtel’, F. I. Lidval’). From roughly 1905 to 1920 such fanciful architecture acquired greater austerity and rationality, and reinforced-concrete construction largely determined a building’s appearance (as seen in edifices by I. I. Rerberg). Also popular at this time was a style that employed motifs from ancient Russian architecture (A. V. Shchusev), classicism (Fomin), and the Renaissance (I. V. Zholtovskii). This style to some extent was blended with art nouveau.

The decorative arts experienced a crisis in the second half of the 19th century as a result of the disintegration of classicism, the assertion of eclecticism, and the replacement of handicraft industry by factory labor in the production of fabrics, porcelain, and glassware. The folk crafts (wood carving and painting, bone carving, ceramics, needlework) were transformed into cottage industries and suffered the ruinous effects of a capitalist economy.

The principles of art nouveau, which advanced a program for the aesthetic transformation of the environment, prevailed in the decorative arts at the turn of the 20th century. Major artists, including V. A. Serov, M. A. Vrubel’, and S. V. Maliutin, worked in the decorative arts. Efforts were made to revive folk crafts, for example, in Abramtsevo and Talashkino, but they were of limited scope.

The course of development of representational art changed radically in the late 19th century. A definitive role was assumed by the democratic realist movement, which was closely associated with the social liberation struggle and which was emerging as an important social force in Russia’s intellectual and cultural life. Democratic realism was in opposition to academism—a tendency far removed from life—which was supported by the Academy of Arts. As an act of protest against academicism, a group of artists left the academy in 1863 and formed the Artists’ Artel. In 1870 the artel’s leading artists founded the Society of Wandering Art Exhibitions (the peredvizhniki—the “wanderers”).

Adopting the aesthetic principles of the revolutionary democrats, progressive artists saw their tasks to be the exposure of tyranny and human oppression, the defense of the common people, and the glorification of man’s best qualities. Their art, which is known in Soviet art scholarship as critical realism, consisted primarily of portraiture and genre painting. To a great extent, the movement was generated by the satirical graphic art in the journals Iskra (The Spark) and Gudok (The Whistle) and by the work of the graphic artists N. A. Stepanov and P. M. Shmel’kov.

Painting in the late 1850’s was devoted to the depiction of real situations and psychological states. Typical themes included the defense of the downtrodden and humiliated (V. I. Iakobi, N. V. Nevrev, V. V. Pukirev, and L. I. Solomatkin). The major Russian artist of the 1860’s was V. G. Perov, whose works ranged from satirical exposés to generalized representations revealing the aesthetic significance of the life of the people. Per-ov’s portrait of F. M. Dostoevsky was one of the first sociopsy-chological portraits of the late 19th century. V. G. Shvarts introduced a real interest in the events of the past into historical painting, a genre in which epigonic academicism had long dominated (F. A. Bruni). N. N. Ge interpreted religious-historical scenes as shocking dramatic events crying out against human suffering.

The new tendencies in art were most consistently manifested in the work of the peredvizhniki, who in the 1870’s and 1880’s developed an original type of realistic painting. In a generalized way, the peredvizhniki depicted societal life and affirmed the beauty and significance of the character of the common man. Their art reflected the anti-autocratic mood of progressive Russian society, with its consuming interest in the peasant problem of the postreform period. The peasant theme was widely used by G. G. Miasoedov, V. M. Maksimov, A. I. Korzukhin, and I. M. Prianishnikov. These artists at first simply re-created episodes from daily peasant life and later proceeded to a socioana-lytical representation of people and situations. The same course was taken by K. A. Savitskii, who captured the life of the peasantry and working people in his many-figured compositions. The small canvases of V. E. Makovskii, a keen observer of human character, clearly demonstrate the artist’s ability to grasp the social implications of ordinary occurrences. N. A. Iaroshen-ko’s portraits and genre scenes depict new social types and proclaim the dignity of civic self-sacrifice.

The critic V. V. Stasov supported the work of the peredvizhniki. The group’s leader, I. N. Kramskoi, produced portraits that affirmed the moral greatness of the human intellect. Kramskoi’s belief in the individual’s responsibility to history and to his own conscience was expressed in the painting Christ in the Desert (1872, Tret’iakov Gallery, Moscow), which constituted one of the first attempts to create a lofty, generalized image on the basis of the principles of critical realism.

An ethical intepretation of New Testament subjects within the context of modern living was also characteristic of the historical painter V. D. Polenov. Images from the heroic epic, folktale, and folk song were introduced into Russian historical painting by V. M. Vasnetsov (for example, The Bogatyrs, 1881–98, Tret’iakov Gallery). V. V. Vereshchagin, who was closely associated with the peredvizhniki, changed the direction of battle painting, imbued it with dramatic content and expressions of the somber truths of life. Many of his paintings resound as angry exposés of militarism (for example, The Apotheosis of War).

The artistic philosophy of the peredvizhniki is expressed skillfully and with great clarity in the multifaceted work of I. E. Re-pin. His monumental canvases, such as The Volga Boatmen and Religious Procession in Kursk Province, were overviews of contemporary life and truthful records of peasant Russia and its sharpest contradictions. Repin combined precise individualized characterization with a re-creation of the dynamics of groups of people. His works are noted for their plastic modeling of form and picturesque rendering of landscape. Repin proved himself to be a master of psychological drama in his paintings devoted to the revolutionary movement, for example, The Unexpected. His portraits consist of the complex interweaving of the subject’s individual and sociotypological characteristics (for example, Portrait of M. P. Mussorgsky). Repin’s historical paintings, such as Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, are truthful portrayals of strong personalities and dramatic events.

Nineteenth-century Russian historical painting reached its heights in the work of V. I. Surikov, for whom the people constituted the central hero of history. His many-figured canvases, which are addressed to history’s critical moments, reveal the diversity of human characters and emotions and the irreconcilable conflicts of historical forces (for example, The Morning of the Strel’tsy Execution and The Boiarynia Morozova). Surikov’s understanding of nature was both objective and impulsively emotional. The artist also combined multilevel analysis with spontaneous perception. In his representation of reflected colors, Surikov surrounded his subjects with an atmosphere of light and air and supplemented the chiaroscuro build-up of solids with the modeling of form by color.

A new stage in the development of landscape painting resulted from efforts by M. K. Klodt, L. L. Kamenev, and other artists to create truthful portrayals of the Russian landscape. Beginning in the 1870’s the peredvizhniki elevated the landscape to the level of a major, socially significant art form. In A. K. Savrasov’s The Rooks Have Come the essence of nature is revealed, and mankind’s feelings toward nature are reflected. Polenov, who imbued his landscapes with emotion, strove to combine materiality with the effects of sunlight and air.

The Russian landscape is portrayed in its full grandeur in the work of I.I. Shishkin. The paintings of F. A. Vasil’ev depict the landscape in an unusually turbulent state; an even more emotional rendering of nature characterizes the landscapes of A. I. Kuindzhi, who used vibrant lighting effects. Influenced by the peredvizhniki, I. K. Aivazovskii added greater content to his landscapes. The works of I.I. Levitan, the creator of the “mood landscape,” represented by themselves an entire stage in the development of Russian landscape painting. In Levitan’s early works a serene, pensive beauty is subtly revealed within a simple landscape motif to which man can easily relate. His later landscapes are thematic in character, expressing profound judgments about life.

Late-19th-century Russian sculpture sought a more natural representation of man. Small-scale sculpture was developed, including free-standing statues intended for museum display (M. M. Antokol’skii). Monumental sculpture (A. M. Opekush-in) was strongly influenced by such smaller sculptural forms.

From the 1890’s through the second decade of the 20th century, Russian art reflected the growing revolutionary fervor. Its diverse and complex forms expressed the struggle between two cultures: the bourgeois-aristocratic culture, which was undergoing a crisis, and the proletarian culture, which was in the process of being born. Realistic-democratic tendencies were not only in conflict with official ideology but also with a number of new artistic movements marked by the rejection of art’s social responsibilities and realistic apprehension of the world.

In the 1890’s art generally moved away from the traditions of the peredvizhniki and followed various lines of development. One school, represented by V. N. Baksheev, I. P. Bogdanov, and K. V. Lebedev, presented the “little man,” crushed by the burdens of daily life. During this period, the art of the peredvizhniki was generally addressed to pressing sociohistori-cal problems; this is seen in the works of S. A. Korovin and A. E. Arkhipov (who also painted lyrical canvases). N. A. Ka-satkin introduced the proletarian theme into Russian art, depicting the working class as an awesome force asserting itself in the life of society (for example, Coal Miners: Change of Shift). The maturing revolutionary struggle was the principal theme of the work of S. V. Ivanov, who portrayed the complete irreconcilability of the conflict between class forces.

The art of the peredvizhniki also inspired a school of art, represented chiefly by the Union of Russian Artists, that tended toward lyrical, spiritualized images glorifying the enduring beauty of the national character and the Russian landscape. One of this school’s pioneers was M. V. Nesterov, whose paintings are marked by lofty poetic feeling intertwined with religious idyllic notes. This national-romantic movement was distinguished by a decorative use of color, sparseness of outline, and flat composition. Such qualities are seen in the type-portraits of F. A. Maliavin and the historical paintings of S. V. Ivanov and A. P. Riabushkin.

During this period a tendency toward directness of emotional experience was common in the landscape painting of those artists continuing the traditions of the peredvizhniki (A. S. Stepanov and S. Iu. Zhukovskii) and those affected by the impressionist and post-impressionist movements (I. E. Grabar’). This tendency was expressed with particular vividness by K. A. Korovin, whose landscapes are noted for festively sensual and picturesquely dynamic images. Also noteworthy are works by Kuindzhi’s pupils: K. F. Bogaevskii, N. K. Rerikh, and A. A. Rylov painted landscapes often marked by symbolist expressiveness.

The new qualities of realist art found dramatic expression in the work of V. A. Serov, who re-created the world in all its wealth of movement and color. As time passed, Serov developed a more austere style characterized by a restrained palette and polished line. Serov’s technique enabled him to produce portraits that glorified the artistic nature and civic virtue of the creative individual. He enriched the peasant theme by means of a subtle lyrical rendering of his subjects, glorified the eternal beauty of humanity and nature in his paintings of ancient Greek and Roman themes, and revealed the drama of Petrine times in his works on that subject.

M. A. Vrubel’ sensed an inner spirituality, closely related to symbolist fairy-tale fantasy, behind the ordinary meaning of occurrences and objects. The demon—a symbol of greatness and tragic doom—was a common element. Paintings by Vrubel’ clearly reflect the Utopianambition of art nouveau to transform life through an art embracing all aspects of man’s physical environment. Hence, Vrubel’ produced decorative monumental paintings and sculptures, objects of applied art, and book illustrations. The utopianism of art nouveau is also reflected in the works of V. E. Borisov-Musatov, who sought a broad decorative style in painting.

A desire to juxtapose an aesthetic ideal to the anti-art atmosphere inspired the members of the World of Art. A. N. Benois, K. A. Somov, and E. E. Lansere created a special type of lyrical historical landscape. The World of Art revitalized the arts of engraving (A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva), book graphics (Benois, I.I. Bilibin), and set design (A. Ia. Golovin, L. S. Bakst). However, as demonstrated by the works on city themes by M. V. Dobuzhinskii, contemporary reality often intruded upon the World of Art’s illusory aesthetic independence from social life, which rested upon the artistic values of the past.

The Revolution of 1905–07 divided artists and schools. Art forms capable of playing a role in the political struggle came to the fore, with newspaper graphics assuming an important position. Serov, D. N. Kardovskii, B. M. Kustodiev, Dobuzhinskii, Lansere, and Bilibin produced political drawings. The paintings of Repin, Polenov, V. Makovskii, S. Ivanov, Kasatkin, L. V. Popov, and I. I. Brodskii responded to the events of the revolution. It became evident that socialist ideas were penetrating the creative process of progressive artists (for example, A. S. Golubkina’s sculptural portraits of K. Marx, and S. T. Ko-nenkov’s sculpture of the fighting worker Ivan Churkin. In his article “The Party Organization and Party Literature,” V. I. Lenin set forth the task of including artistic creation in the party’s struggle, thereby defining the future prospects of revolutionary democratic art.

Between 1907 and 1917, after the defeat of the Revolution of 1905–07, art, to a large extent, developed exclusively within the context of aesthetic movements. Its development was very intensive, yet there was sharp clashes between rebellion and conservatism and between humanism and decadence.

Realist traditions were continued in landscapes by P. I. Pe-trovich and L. V. Turzhanskii and in portraits by Maliutin. They were further developed in the lyrical, contemplative painting of K. F. Iuon and the colorful, somewhat stylized art of Kustodiev. Neoclassical tendencies appeared in the second decade of the 20th century in the work of a number of World of Art members, such as Z. E. Serebriakova. In sculpture, impressionist currents (P. P. Trubetskoi, N. A. Andreev) were superseded by a search for plastic wholeness of form (A. T. Matveev), often through the use of folk and ancient Greek or Roman motifs (Konenkov).

At the same time, there emerged schools paradoxically expressing both acute response to life and flight from life, and both searches for new artistic expression and destructive formalist tendencies. In the paintings of the Blue Rose school, mystical themes often coexist with the colorful poetry of oriental life (M. S. Sar’ian, P. V. Kuznetsov). A special world is created in K. S. Petrov-Vodkin’s spiritualized symbolist compositions, with their stylized spherical space, and in the fanciful paintings of M. Chagall. The artists of the Jack of Diamonds group, including P. P. Konchalovskii, I.I. Mashkov, A. V. Kuprin, A. V. Lentulov, and R. R. Fal’k, resorted to distortions of nature but, at the same time, re-created the material-sensuous expressiveness of the world. The futurist artists of the group, such as M; F. Larionov and N. S. Goncharova, broke with reality, employing anarchic tendencies and artistic mythologization (as seen in the Donkey’s Tail movement). The first representatives of abstract art, who included K. S. Malevich and W. Kandinsky, emerged after 1910. Thus, the contradictions and crisis in the art of bourgeois society were expressed in the sharpest, most turbulent form in Russia, which by the time of the October Revolution of 1917 had become a focal point of the world social conflict.

Progressive Russian art revolutionized the art of the other peoples of Russia, nourished by the ideas of national and social liberation. It helped to overcome the medieval norms in the artistic culture of the peoples of the Caucasus and Middle Asia, which had become part of Russia in the 19th century. The achievements of progressive realist art, engendered by Russian democratic culture (which had formed in close connection with the revolutionary liberation movement), determined the leading position held by Russian art in world artistic culture.

Soviet art. The October Revolution created the requisite conditions for the development of a new historical type of art—the art of socialist society. Such an art is closely tied to the life of the people, expressing the people’s interests and representing an active ideological and educational force.

The abolition of private landholding, the nationalization of industry, and the planned organization of the national economy opened up fundamentally new possibilities for urban planning and determined the nationwide scope of architecture and other construction projects. In the first years of Soviet power, urban-design projects were undertaken in Moscow (Shchusev) and Petrograd (Fomin), and architects helped in the realization of Lenin’s plan for monument propaganda. The expression of new ideas was attained primarily in plans characterized by elements of abstractly lofty romanticism. In these years the construction of the first Soviet industrial and engineering projects was undertaken. Such projects included the Moscow Radio Tower (engineer V. G. Shukhov), the Shatura State Regional Power Plant (architect L. A. Vesnin), the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant (architect O. R. Munts). The power plants were built according to plans by GOELRO.

In the mid-1920’s, the first major urban-planning projects—the radical reconstruction of the old proletarian outskirts of Moscow and Leningrad—were part of the country’s socialist transformation. Well-designed residential areas for workers, planned as integral architectural ensembles and including buildings providing necessary social services (such as schools and dining halls), were built. Also constructed were workers’ clubs, for example, the A. M. Gorky Palace of Culture in Leningrad (architects A. I. Gegello and D. L. Krichevskii) and the I. V. Rusakov Club in Moscow (architect K. S. Mel’ni-kov). In 1923 the All-Russian Agricultural and Domestic Industrial Exhibition was erected in Moscow. The V. I. Lenin Mausoleum (architect Shchusev), which was erected in the 1920’s, is both a memorial structure of great meaning and artistic force and a solemn reviewing stand. The mausoleum greatly complements the ensemble of Red Square.

New industrial construction during the first five-year plan (1929–32) led to the rebuilding of old cities (Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Cheliabinsk) and the rise of new industrial centers (Magnitogorsk and Novokuznetsk). These well-designed industrial areas included green zones; they followed integrated plans providing for a rational arrangement of industrial and housing zones and for a network of social, cultural and public services. The “house-communes” designed by M. Ia. Ginzburg, I. S. Ni-kolaev, and others represented attempts to develop a new type of dwelling.

Each artistic group of the 1920’s and early 1930’s, such as As-nova and the Association of Contemporary Architects, had its own views on matters concerning content and form in architecture, the role of technology in architecture, the functional tasks of architecture, and the social nature of architecture and urban development (reaching an extreme with the ideas of urbanism and deurbanism). The leading position was assumed by those groups whose representatives concentrated primarily on the functional-constructive problems of architecture. Such concerns are evident in buildings by the Vesnin brothers, I. A. Go-losov, P. A. Golosov, designed by I. I. Leonidov. At the same time, a movement developed that interpreted the principles of classical architecture in a contemporary way (Fomin) or followed classical models literally (Zholtovskii). Interests in classical motifs (V. I. Lenin Library of the USSR in Moscow) and in the forms of “new architecture” (the theater in Rostov-on-Don) coexist in V. A. Shchuko and V. G. Gel’freikh’s works.

In the mid-1930’s architecture entered a new stage. Industrial construction, making wide use of metal and reinforced concrete, increased significantly. Reconstruction projects included an automotive plant in Gorky (architect A. S. Fisenko) and a tractor plant in Volgograd (architect Nikolaev). Architects imparted artistic expression to utilitarian structures by means of the representational arts (as seen in structures of the Moscow subway, the Moscow Canal, and Moscow bridges; architects Shchusev, Fomin, A. N. Dushkin, A. V. Vlasov, D. N. Chechu-lin, A. M. Rukhliadev).

The main principles of the socialist reconstruction of cities were defined in the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR On the General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow (1935). In accordance with the general plan (architects Semenov, S. E. Chernyshev), which preserved the city’s historical layout, the center of Moscow was rebuilt and broad new main roads, which transformed the character of the city, were built (architects A. G. Mordvinov, G. P. Gol’ts). The general plans for Leningrad (1932–34 and 1935–36, L. A. Il’in; 1938–40, N. V. Bara-nov) preserved the city’s historical center and created new residential districts in undeveloped areas (for example, Malaia Okhta, Avtovo, Moskovskii Prospekt; architects A. A. Ol’, B. R. Rubanenko, and I.I. Fomin). General plans were developed for hundreds of cities throughout the USSR.

The members of the Architects’ Union of the USSR, which was formed in 1932, were united by a search for ideologically meaningful images that embody the heritage of world and national architecture. Their orientation was to a large extent determined by the competition in 1932 for the design of the Palace of Soviets in Moscow. The new movement was expressed most vividly in the design of large administrative and public buildings, such as the M. V. Frunze Military Academy (L. V. Rudnev and V. O. Munts, Moscow), the Theater of the Soviet Army (K. S. Alabian and V. N. Simbirtsev, Moscow), and the administrative building on Moskovskii Prospect in Leningrad (N. A. Trotskii). Monumentality and a romanticization distinguished the best structures. However, there did exist elements of imitation and grandiose formality in some Soviet architecture of the period. Such tendencies are evident in the first large-block apartment buildings (A. K. Burov), which were progressive from the standpoint of construction, and in the structures of the Permanent All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow (1939). The best exhibition halls are marked by dramatic expressiveness and by a successful synthesis of the plastic arts (for example, the USSR pavilion at the Paris World’s Fair of 1937; architect B. M. Iofan and sculptor V. I. Mukhina).

During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, architects and builders solved pressing problems involved in the transfer of industrial enterprises to the eastern regions. The rebuilding of hundreds of cities destroyed by the fascist invaders is a heroic page in the history of Soviet urban construction. Cities were rebuilt in accordance with general plans of reconstruction and development; street plans and buildings were radically improved. For example, the center of Volgograd was redesigned, and the riverside was freed from industrial structures, thereby giving the residential districts access to the Volga (architects Alabian, N. Kh. Poliakov, and Simbirtsev). Extensive reconstruction of destroyed and damaged architectural landmarks was carried out in Leningrad and its suburbs, in Novgorod, and in Pskov. As cities were restored and rebuilt, new ensembles, gardens, and parks—unified by an overall compositional concept—were created. Such unifying principles guided the restoration and development of Leningrad (architects Baranov, A. I. Naumov, V. A. Kamenskii).

In the early 1950’s a group of multistory buildings was constructed in Moscow. Sites were choosen that were well integrated with the capital’s radial-ring plan. The most important of these projects is the university complex on the Lenin Hills (Rudnev and others); the buildings are integrated into the terrain and play a major role in shaping the urban landscape. The growth of cities was also tied in with the reconstruction of industrial enterprises and the building of new plants and large hy-drotechnical structures, such as the Volga Hydroelectric System and the V. I. Lenin Volga-Don Ship Canal (L. M. Poliakov and others).

Despite achievements in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the pace and character of construction were on the whole inadequate to meet growing demands. Reasons for this included obsolete practices and a lagging technological base in the construction industry. A major revamping of architectural and construction practices, which began after the All-Union Conference of Builders and Architects in December 1954, led to a broad industrialization of construction. Conversion to the mechanized assembly of buildings from prefabricated elements (such as large blocks and panels) and the establishment of a network of special housing-construction plans and combines led to a sharp increase in the volume of construction, particularly housing construction. The aesthetic aspect of architecture also changed, having been freed from the imitation of historical styles. Housing construction often was based on mikroraion planning, that is, the design of residential complexes and nearby facilities (such as stores and schools) providing essential services. Constraints of economy and time have limited the construction of new residential districts to undeveloped tracts of land.

In the mid-1950’s the construction of large residential areas was undertaken in Moscow, Leningrad, Yaroslavl, Sverdlovsk, Gorky, Volgograd, Kuibyshev, Vladivostok, Krasnoiarsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, and other cities. New general plans were introduced in the 1960’s for the reconstruction and expansion of many other cities of the RSFSR, including the capitals (Yakutsk, Izhevsk, Elista, Nal’chik) and industrial centers (Salavat, Oktiabr’skii, Noril’sk) of autonomous republics, oblasts, and national okrugs. Architects of different generations and nationalities produced expressive architectural groups, such as Kalinin Prospect with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance building in Moscow (architects M. V. Posokhin, A. A. Mndoi-ants), and the Lenin Memorial in Ul’ianovsk (architect B. S. Mezentsev).

The 1960’s and 1970’s have been marked by a search for a synthesis between architecture and the pictorial arts. This has led to an enhanced ideological-educational role for architecture and to the establishment of an integral ideological-aesthetic urban environment, helping to create conditions most favorable to the life and work of the people. These aims characterize the building of new cities (such as Naberezhnye Chelny, architect B. R. Rubanenko) and the reconstruction of old cities, where new architectual groups are being designed (for example, in Murmansk, Arhkangel’sk, Perm’, Sverdlovsk, Kostroma, Kolomna, and Vladimir).

In the 1960’s and 1970’s there has been increasing variety in precast large-panel housing construction. Mixing buildings of different heights in residential areas helps to overcome the monotony of mass housing architecture and to make architectural complexes more expressive. Fruitful experimentation is being carried out in industrial construction and hydroegineering, as seen in the Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Plant (architect G. M. Orlov). The functional and aesthetic solutions for industrial interiors and transportation structures are being improved. Improvements are aso noticeable in the design of hospitals, sanatoriums (in such places as Sochi and Mineral’nye Vody), hotels, schools, children’s institutions (such as the Palace of Pioneers and Schoolchildren in Moscow; architect I. A. Pokrovskii), and sports arenas (the V. I. Lenin Stadium complex in Moscow, architect Vlasov).

Traditional types of cultural institutions are acquiring new architectural expressiveness. Examples are the Rossiia movie theater in Moscow (1961, architect Iu. Sheverdiaev), the K. E. Tsiolkovskii Museum of the History of Cosmonautics in Kaluga (1967, architect B. G. Barkhin), the Tula Theater (1970, architects S. Kh. Galadzheva, V. D. Krasil’nikov), and the Kazan Circus (1967, architect G. M. Pichuev). Also being developed are new types of sports and all-purpose centers, and television centers (for example, the Moscow Television Center, 1968, architect L. I. Batalov; the Moscow Television Tower, 1967, engineers N. V. Nikitin and B. A. Zlobin, architect D. I. Burdin).

The progressive ideas of our age have been embodied in the architecture of public buildings, such as the Kremlin Palace of Congresses in Moscow (architects Posokhin and Mndoiants). Construction at kolkhozes and sovkhozes in the 1960’s and 1970’s has been directed toward providing rural settlements with the amenities characteristic of urban regions (for example, the Zaria Kommunizma Sovkhoz in Moscow Oblast).

There is a growing exchange of ideas between architects of the RSFSR and those of the other republics of the USSR. Numerous works by architects of the RSFSR abroad help to raise the prestige of Soviet architecture that deals with progresive social and aesthetic tasks.

The October Revolution of 1917, having made the fine arts accessible to all workers enlisted art in the solution of major sociopolitical problems and promoted the free, all-around development of art that served in the creation of the new order. The Communist Party’s challenge to put art at the service of the Revolution permitted the artists of the young Soviet republic to define more clearly their political and creative positions. It also enabled artists to develop the traditions of realistic democratic art, to overcome bourgeois conservative and purely aesthetic views, and to abandon anarchic concepts of revolutionary art as creation devoted to a shattering upheaval of form. The party also rejected the claims of the futurists and Proletkul’t members to a monopoly in the new culture.

During this period of intensified class struggle, agitational poster art and satirical newspaper and magazine cartoons (D. S. Moor, V. N. Deni) flourished. A new kind of poster was developed, which was drawn by hand and reproduced from a stencil (for example, the Okna ROSTA by M. M. Cheremnykh, V. V. Mayakovsky, and others). Lenin’s plan for monument propaganda was vital to the revolutionary education of the art world and to the formulation of the principles of ideological realistic art. Sculptors participating in monument propaganda included Andreev, Konenkov, Matveev, M. G. Manizer, S. D. Merku-rov, Mukhina, V. A. Sinaiskii, L. V. Shervud, and S. D. Er’zia.

Book graphics developed extensively as a result of the mass publication of the literary classics. Such artists as Kustodiev, Lansere, D. I. Mitrokhin, and S. V. Chekhonin laid the foundations for realistic Soviet book graphics. In the pictorial arts of the first postrevolutionary years, the events of the Revolution were reflected in a variety of ways, from the explicitly historical (the paintings of Brodskii and I. A. Vladimirov and the drawings of Maliavin) to the romantically symbolic (the engravings of N. N. Kupreianov and the paintings of Kustodiev, Petrov-Vodkin, Rylov, and Iuon).

In the 1920’s and early 1930’s, artists strove to find their place in the society that was building socialism and to respond to the growing interest of the broad masses in artistic culture. They turned to industrial motifs and enriched the traditional peasant theme with new interpretations. Their art reflected the transformation of reality and the affirmation of life. Different tendencies may be distinguished in the work of artists belonging to such associations as the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia, the Society of Easel Painters, the Society of Moscow Artists, and the Four Arts. Common tendencies included documentary observation, intellectual and philosophical generalization, and analytical insight into the lawlike regularities of life. The movement toward artistic unification in the early 1930’s was associated with the affirmation of socialist realism as the fundamental creative method of Soviet art, which formed in the struggle against tendencies toward aesthetism, naturalism, formalism, conservatism, and pseudo-innovation.

Painting of the 1920’s and early 1930’s was dominated by the thematic representations that clearly expressed a generalized opinion concerning historical-revolutionary events and current affairs (F. S. Bogorodskii, Brodskii, A. M. Gerasimov, M. B. Grekov, A. A. Deineka, B. V. Ioganson, E. K. Katsman, A. V. Moravov, Petrov-Vodkin, Iu. I. Pimenov, E. M. Cheptsov, D. P. Shterenberg, and P. M. Shukhmin). In both painting (Maliutin, G. G. Riazhskii) and sculpture (Golubkina, S. D. Lebedeva) the portrait acquired new significance, representing the new type of man and revealing the substance and strength of his personality. Andreev’s Leniniana are based on sketches and sculptural studies made from life. The sculpture of B. D. Korolev, Matveev, Mukhina, and I. D. Shadr, rich in spatial and plastic solutions, vividly convey the heroic spirit of the Revolution.

The new phenomena engendered by the Soviet era are clearly reflected in every genre of art. The industrial motifs associated with modern life are incorporated into landscape painting with increasing frequency (Bogaevskii, P. I. Kotov, Kuprin, B. N. Ia-kovlev), although a love for traditional lyrical images prevails for the most part (Baksheev, Grabar’, N. P. Krymov, Iuon). A love of life pervades still lifes of Konchalovskii, Lentulov, Mashkov, and A. A. Osmerkin.

In book graphics and the other graphic arts a new iconography, reflecting Soviet reality, developed. Artists that explored the expressive possibilities of the graphic arts included V. A. Favorskii and A. I. Kravchenko in wood engraving, I. N. Pavlov and P. N. Staronosov in linocut, I. I. Nivinskii in etching, and V. M. Konashevich, V. V. Lebedev, and N. A. Tyrsa in drawing.

Traditional forms were supplemented by the photomontage in agitational and advertising poster art (A. M. Rodchenko, G. G. Klutsis). Early-20th-century traditions in stage design were continued (Iuon, Golovin, V. A. Simov), but sharply expressive and constructivist tendencies also appeared (I. M. Ra-binovich, N. I. Al’tman, the Stenberg brothers). By the 1920’s, the first Soviet motion-picture set designers appeared, including V. E. Egorov and E. E. Enei.

The ideological unity in art that had been welded together by the principles of socialist realism was the basis for the disbanding of the associations and groups that had outlived their usefulness. These groups were dissolved by the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) On the Restructuring of Literary and Artistic Organizations (1932), and steps were taken to create the Artists’ Union. The art of the 1930’s was noted for its great optimism and its tendency toward open emotional expressiveness, although in a number of works these qualities were lacking in genuine depth.

Ioganson’s paintings The Interrogation of Communists and A t the Old Urals Factory masterfully reveal historical conflict through clashes between human characters. Revolutionary romanticism pervades S. V. Gerasimov’s canvas The Oath of Siberian Partisans. Life-affirming images of modern reality were created in the genre paintings of T. G. Gaponenko, Deineka, K. N. Istomin, Pimenov, S. V. Riangina, and A. N. Samokhva-lov, and modern man’s character and the creative force molding his personality were reflected in portraits by A. Gerasimov, Grabar’, V. P. Efanov, Konchalovskii, P. D. Korin, and Nesterov.

The construction of new public buildings stimulated the revival of mural painting, mosaic art, and sgraffito (L. A. Bruni, Deineka, Lansere, B. F. Uitts, Favorskii). Monumental sculpture, coordinated with architecture, also developed (I. S. Efi-mov, G. I. Motovilov, I. M. Chaikov). Mukhina’s sculptural group The Worker and the Female Kolkhoznik has become a symbol of Soviet society and its striving for the future. Large monuments by Manizer, Merkurov, and N. V. Tomskii assumed an important place in urban planning. V. Ia. Bogoliu-bov, V. I. Ingal, and Sinaiskii sculptured striking likenesses of their contemporaries.

The 1930’s were marked by the development of book illustration in the direction of detailed interpretations of literary images. The drawings of A. M. Kanevskii, E. A. Kibrik, N. V. Kuz’min, K. I. Rudakov, E. I. Charushin, and D. A. Shmarinov were often used as illustrations. A number of artists formed a group involved specifically with book design (S. M. Pozharskii, S. B. Telingater). Of particular note are the linocuts of I. A. Sok-olov and the watercolors of A. V. Fonvizin. Political satirists, many of whom were grouped around the magazine Krokodil (Crocodile), addressed their art to the theme of antifascism (L. G. Brodaty, B. E. Efimov, and the Kukryniksy). In stage design of the 1930’s, realistic principles united artists of various mediums, including N. P. Akimov, P. V. Vil’iams, V. V. Dmit-riev, V. F. Ryndin, A. G. Tyshler, F. F. Fedorovskii, and N. A. Shifrin.

During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, the artists of the RSFSR produced works imbued with Soviet patriotism and devoted to the national struggle against the fascist invaders. Of particular importance was the political poster, which challenged and angrily condemned the enemy. Leading poster artists of the period included V. S. Ivanov, A. A. Kokerekin, and V. B. Koretskii. The satirical newspaper and magazine cartoon, including those by Efimov and the Kukryniksy, also gained prominence. The Okna TASS in Moscow and the work of the Boevoi Karandash in Leningrad revived traditions of the Civil War years. Artists working for the press at the front included N. N. Zhukov and other artists of the M. B. Grekov Studio of War Artists, whose sketches are of special merit. Such graphic artists as A. F. Pakhomov, L. V. Soifertis, and Shmarinov produced series that faithfully depicted the action at the front.

The heroism, suffering, and courage of the Soviet people served as the subject of paintings by S. Gerasimov, Deineka, the Kukryniksy, and A. A. Plastov during the war years. Patriotism permeated the historical paintings of M. I. Avilov, N. P. Ul’ia-nov, and Korin; the landscapes of Pimenov, N. M. Romadin, and Ia. D. Romas; the portrait paintings of F. A. Modorov, I. A. Serebrianyi, and V. N. Iakovlev; and the portrait drawings of G. S. Vereiskii. Sculptors, such as E. F. Belashova, Manizer, and Mukhina, produced striking images of the Soviet people in their struggle.

The events of war and the spirit of triumph were reflected in many works of art executed in the postwar years, especially in the monuments erected in the USSR and in the countries liberated from fascism. An outstanding memorial complex portraying the humanism of the Soviet Army as liberator was constructed in Berlin by E. V. Vuchetich (with co-authors). Other artists who worked on monuments and sculptural portraits of war heroes included Tomskii, L. E. Kerbel’, and Vl. E. Tsigal’. The war theme was given a lyrical and genre treatment in the paintings of A. I. Laktionov, B. M. Nemenskii, Iu. M. Neprin-tsev, and G. M. Shegal’.

The people’s struggle for the independence of their homeland stimulated the interest of artists in revolutionary history (Iogan-son, Vl. A. Serov, V. G. Tsyplakov), in the Russian people’s heroic past (A. P. Bubnov), and in the great figures of national culture (for example, the monument to N. G. Chernyshevskii in Saratov, sculptor A. P. Kibal’nikov). At the same time, the themes of the work and life of the Soviet people at peace became popular. Peacetime themes were addressed by Plastov, S. A. Chuikov, and F. P. Reshetnikov. Plastov’s thorough understanding of the Russian countryside enabled him to record vivid peasant characters and the poetry of his native landscape. Chuikov re-created the beauty of man and nature, and Reshetnikov painted notable genre scenes. A number of other leading genre artists, including the sculptor V. N. Sokolov and the painters A. P. Levitin, A. A. Myl’nikov, D. K. Sveshnikov, Iu. N. Tulin, and F. S. Shurpin, devoted much of their work to peacetime subjects.

The personalities and social-typological features of contemporary Soviet man were recorded in portraits by painters (G. N. Gorelov, S. I. Dudnik, Korin, Kotov, K. M. Maksimov, D. A. Nalbandian, V. M. Oreshnikov) and by sculptors (Z. M. Vilen-skii, Konenkov, Lebedeva, D. P. Shvarts).

Landscape painting of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s (S. Gerasimov, A. M. Gritsai, G. G. Nisskii, Romadin, Romas, B. Ia. Riauzov) was marked by a wide range of approaches in the depiction of nature, from the extremely lyrical to the heroic and romantic.

In the postwar years graphic artists made use of various means of representing space and three-dimensionality. Their art included series devoted to themes from revolutionary history or contemporary life (Kibrik, N. A. Ponomarev, B. I. Pro-rokov, V. E. Tsigal’). Book illustration primarily developed the traditions of the 1930’s (O. G. Vereiskii, S. Gerasimov, A. D. Goncharov, D. A. Dubinskii, the Kukryniksy, E. M. Rachev, Favorskii, Shmarinov).

The country’s entry into a period of full-scale construction of a communist society led to new achievements in art. Equally important were the improvement in social relations, party guidance of art, and the increased initiative and responsibility of such artistic organizations as the Artists’ Union of the RSFSR (founded in 1960). The artistic culture of the 1960’s and early 1970’s was marked by a multiplicity of techniques and styles; the intensive development of national schools; the founding of new artists’ collectives in the autonomous republics, krais, and oblasts; and the emergence of promising new artists.

The historical paintings of M. Sh. Brusilovskii, G. M. Korzhev, E. E. Moiseenko, G. S. Mosin, and the Tkachev brothers are distinguished by dramatically expressive imagery and by a romantic or emotional treatment of theme. The desire to capture the heroic in everyday contemporary life and to accentuate the lyrical qualities of an image characterize the genre painting of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Leading genre painters included V. N. Gavrilov, D. D. Zhilinskii, V. F. Zagonek, V. I. Ivanov, Iu. P. Kugach, D. K. Mochal’skii, V. K. Nechitailo, P. F. Niko-nov, P. P. Ossovskii, Pimenov, V. E. Popkov, I. A. Popov, and I.I. Simonov.

Painting of the early 1970’s is marked by strengthened ties with contemporary life. A transition may be seen from a romantic perception of the world to a more tangible treatment. Landscapes and still lifes of the 1960’s and 1970’s reflect, on the one hand, a sense of the constant, uniquely national features of man’s natural and material environment and, on the other hand, a deep appreciation of the new qualities that the environment has acquired (L. I. Brodskaia, B. F. Domashnikov, A. Iu. Nikich, Nisskii, V. F. Stozharov, B. V. Shcherbakov).

Portrait painting (M. I. Maliutin, E. N. Shirokov) often reveals the inner spirit of modern man. This trend also characterizes sculpture, with its search for expressive approaches to the treatment of space (lu. V. Aleksandrov, L. F. Golovnitskii, O. K. Komov, L. L. Kremneva, L. F. Lankinen, V. A. Mikha-lev, B. A. Plenkin, A. G. Pologova, S. P. Sanakoev, Iu. L. Chernov, D. M. Shakhovskii).

From the late 1950’s through the early 1970’s artists of the RSFSR produced important works of monumental sculpture in the USSR and abroad. M. K. Anikushin, P. I. Bondarenko, Kerbel’, Kibal’nikov, Tomskii, A. P. Faidysh, and VI. E. Tsigal’ were particularly active in this field. Memorial complexes united landscape, architecture, sculpture, and other art genres into a harmonious whole. Examples include the ensemble in Volgograd (sculptor Vuchetich), and the Green Belt of Glory around Leningrad (architects G. N. Buldakov, V. L. Gaikovich, M. A. Sementovskaia; sculptors B. A. Svinin, K. M. Simun). The latter complex commemorates the battle of Leningrad of 1941–44.

In the 1960’s graphic artists mainly produced prints intended for exhibitions and for everyday use (V. A. Vetrogonskii, I. V. Golitsyn, G. F. Zakharov, A. P. Munkhalov, I. P. Obrosov, A. A. Ushin). In book graphics there was a growing interest in the artistic unity of all the components of a book (D. S. Bisti, Iu. A. Vasnetsov, V. N. Goriaev, M. I. Pikov). Poster art became more pointed, concise, and two-dimensional (O. M. Sa-vostiuk, B. A. Uspenskii).

Stage design of the 1960’s and 1970’s has been characterized by a variety of approaches in both painting and spatial organization (A. P. Vasil’ev, B. I. Volkov, N. N. Zolotarev, S. M. Iuno-vich). Noteworthy set designers for motion pictures have included M. A. Bogdanov, G. A. Miasnikov, and A. I. Parkhomenko.

Development in monumental-decorative art forms associated with architecture resulted from the strengthened ties between art and the life of the people and the enhanced ideological-educational role of art during the period of communist building. Mosaics, murals, stained-glass windows, and sculptural decoration are used increasingly to aesthetically transform the everyday environment of the Soviet people. This field of art has attracted many artists, including A. V. Vasnetsov, Iu. K. Korolev, and B. A. Tal’berg.

Soviet reality gave rise to new types of decorative art aimed at fulfilling functions of mass agitation (for example, furnishings for agitational trains and decorations for the celebration of revolutionary holidays). A number of traditional genres were transformed, as seen in agitational porcelain. The production art movement of the 1920’s, despite a number of vulgarizing tendencies, was the first to experiment with artist design. Artists of this movement included V. E. Tatlin, L. M. Lisitskii, L. S. Po-pova, and V. F. Stepanova.

The traditional folk crafts developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s acquiring themes from modern life and new forms and ideas. Development was particularly noticeable in Palekh, Fedoski-no, Mstera, and Kholui miniatures, Gorodets and Zhostovo painting, and Dymkovo toys.

By the mid-1930’s many professional artists turned to textile design, porcelain design, and glass-making. In the 1960’s and 1970’s aesthetic principles were established in the various industrial sectors, and a new field of art—industrial design—has emerged. At the same time, conditions promoting the development of folk crafts have arisen.

The USSR’s frequent participation in international exhibitions during the last few decades has contributed to the development of display design (K. I. Rozhdestvenskii, R. R. Kliks).

Art has enjoyed revitalization among all the people of the RSFSR. In some cases this new vigor was apparent immediately after the October Revolution. National schools were formed in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and by the 1960’s the revitalization of art had spread to all the autonomous republics. Of particular importance has been the influence of Russian art and, more specifically, the pedagogical work of Russian artists in the various autonomous republics. E. E. Lansere taught in the Dagestan ASSR, P. A. Radimov in the Mari ASSR, K. A. Makarov and F. V. Sychkov in the Mordovian ASSR, and P. P. Ben’kov in the Tatar ASSR. Each autonomous republic has its own professionally trained artists, and in most of the republics there are branches of the Artists’ Union of the RSFSR and the Architect’s Union of the USSR. Traditional genres of folk applied art are being developed, as are painting, sculpture, monumental art, set design, and graphic art. The painting of Bashkiria and Tataria, the sculpture of Karelia and Tuva, the graphic art of Yakutia, and the work of artists of the other autonomous republics have received recognition throughout the Soviet Union and have become an inseparable part of the art of the RSFSR and of Soviet culture as a whole.

The Russian school’s contribution to the multinational culture of the USSR is enormous. The school has most fully revealed the potential of Soviet art in carrying out the task formulated in the Program of the CPSU: “The artistic principle shall spiritualize labor, beautify daily life, and ennoble man still more” (Programma Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, Moscow, 1974, p. 130).


General works
Grabar’, I. E. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, vols. 1–6. Moscow [1909–17].
Fedorov-Davydov, A. A. Russkoe iskusstvo promyshlennogo kapitalizma. [Moscow] 1929.
Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsiia. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933.
Kovalenskaia, N. N. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow, 1951.
Kovalenskaia, N. N. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva XVIII veka. Moscow, 1962.
Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, vols. 1–2. Edited by N. G. Mashkovtsev. Moscow, 1957–60.
O literature i iskusstve: Sb. dokumentov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1960.
Mneva, N. E. Iskusstvo Moskovskoi Rusi: Vtoraia polovina XV–XVII vv. Moscow, 1965.
Alpatov, M. V. Etiudy po istorii russkogo iskusstva, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1967.
Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, vols. 1–13. Edited by I. E. Grabar’. Moscow, 1953–69.
Russkaia khudozhestvennaia kul’tura kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka (1895–1907), book 2. Moscow, 1969.
Aleshina, L. S., M. M. Rakova, and T. N. Gorina. Russkoe iskusstvo XIX-nachala XX veka. [Moscow, 1972.] [In the series Pamiatniki mirovogo iskusstva.]
Istoriia iskusstva narodov SSSR, vols. 1–2, and 7. Moscow, 1971–73.
Voronin, N. N. Drevnerusskie goroda. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945.
Tverskoi, L. M. Russkoe gradostroitel’stvo do kontsa XVII veka. Leningrad-Moscow, 1953.
Istoriia russkoi arkhitektury, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1956.
Baranov, N. V. Sovremennoe gradostroitel’stvo: Glavnye problemy. [Moscow, 1962.]
Istoriia sovetskoi arkhitektury: 1917–1958. Moscow, 1962.
Makovetskii, I. V. Arkhitektura russkogo narodnogo zhilishcha: Sever i Verkhnee Povolzh’e. Moscow, 1962.
Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury: 1917–1925 gg. Dokumenty i materialy. Moscow, 1963.
Russkoe dereviannoe zodchestvo (album). Compiled and with an introduction by G. I. Mekhov. Moscow (1966).
Gradostroitel’stvo SSSR [1917–1967]. Moscow, 1967.
Zhuravlev, A. M., and S. O. Khan-Magomedov. Sovetskaia arkhitektura. Moscow, 1968.
Sovetskaia arkhitektura za 50 let. Moscow, 1968.
Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury: 1926–1932 gg. Dokumenty i materialy. Moscow, 1970.
Khazanova, V. E Sovetskaia arkhitektura pervykh let Oktiabria: 1917–1925 gg. Moscow, 1970.
Borisova, E. A., and T. P. Kazhdan. Russkaia arkhitektura kontsa XIX–nachala XX veka. Moscow, 1971.
Vseobshchaia istoriia arkhitektury, vols. 1–3,6, 10. Moscow, 1966–73.
Representational art
Rovinskii, D. A. Russkie narodnye kartinki, books 1–5 (text) and vols. 1–3 (atlas). St. Petersburg, 1881–93.
Tugendkhol’d, Ia. A. Iskusstvo oktiabr’skoi epokhi. Leningrad, 1930.
Lebedev, P. Sovetskoe iskusstvo v period inostrannoi voennoi interventsii i grazhdanskoi voiny. Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
Lebedev, P. Russkaia sovetskaia zhivopis’: Kratkaia istoriia. Moscow, 1963.
Brodskii, V. Sovetskaia batal’naia zhivopis’. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Svirin, A. N. Drevnerusskaia miniatiura. Moscow, 1950.
Kornilov, P. E. Ofort v Rossii XVII–XX vv: Kratkii ocherk. Moscow, 1953
Korostin, A. F. Russkaia litografiia XIX veka. Moscow, 1953.
Fedorov-Davydov, A. Russkii peizazh XVIII-nachala XIX veka. Moscow, 1953.
Fedorov-Davydov, A. Sovetskii peizazh. Moscow, 1958.
Fedorov-Davydov, A. Russkii peizazh kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka: Ocherki. Moscow, 1974.
Ocherki po istorii russkogo iskusstva. [Moscow] 1954.
Sarab’ianov, D. Narodno-osvoboditel’nye idei russkoi zhivopisi vtoroi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow, 1955.
Sarab’ianov, D. Russkaia zhivopis’ kontsa 1900-kh—nachala 1910-kh go-dov: Ocherki. [Moscow, 1971.]
Sarab’ianov, D. Russkie zhivopistsy nachala XX veka (novye napravleniia). Leningrad [1973]. (In Russian and English.)
Chegodaev, A. Puti razvitiia russkoi sovetskoi knizhnoi grafiki. Moscow, 1955.
Sidorov, A. Istoriia russkogo risunka, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1951–56.
Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo RSFSR: 1917–1957 (album), vols. 1–2. [Moscow] 1957.
Tolstoi, V. P. Sovetskaia monumental’naia zhivopis’. Moscow, 1958.
Stanovlenie sotsialisticheskogo realizma v sovetskom izobrazitel’nom iskusstve (collection of articles). Moscow, 1960.
Nikiforov, B. M. Zhanrovaia zhivopis’. Moscow, 1961.
Russkaia zhanrovaia zhivopis’ XIX veka (album). Moscow [1961].
Bor’ba za realizm v izobrazitel’nom iskusstve 20-kh godov: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia. [Moscow, 1962.]
Demosfenova, G., A. Nurok, and N. Shantyko. Sovetskii politicheskii plakat. Moscow, 1962.
Ocherki po istorii russkogo portreta vtoroi poloviny XIX veka. Edited by N. G. Mashkovtsev, Moscow, 1963.
Kuratova, I. A. Sovetskaia skul’ptura: Kratkii ocherk. [Moscow, 1964.]
Ocherki po istorii russkogo portreta kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka. Edited by N. G. Mashkovtsev and N.I. Sokolova. Moscow, 1964.
Russkaia zhanrovaia zhivopis’ XIX-nachala XX veka. Moscow, 1964.
Sternin, G. Ocherki russkoi satiricheskoi grafiki. Moscow, 1964.
Sternin, G. Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Rossii na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov. Moscow, 1970.
Suzdalev, P. K. Sovetskoe iskusstvo perioda Velikoi Otechestvennoi voiny. Moscow [1965].
Zinger, L. Portret v russkoi sovetskoi zhivopisi. [Leningrad, 1966.]
Ocherki po istorii russkogo portreta pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow, 1966.
Iskusstvo, rozhdennoe Oktiabrem. Moscow, 1967.
50 let sovetskogo iskusstva: Grafika (album). Moscow [1966].
50 let sovetskogo iskusstva: Zhivopis’ (album). Moscow [1967].
50 let sovetskogo iskusstva: Skul’ptura (album). Moscow [1967].
Istoriia sovetskogo iskusstva: Zhivopis’, skul’ptura, grafika, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1965–68.
Kriukova, I. A. Russkaia skul’ptura malykh form. Moscow, 1969.
50 let sovetskogo iskusstva: Khudozhniki teatra (album). [Moscow, 1969.]
Lazarev, V. N. Russkaia srednevekovaia zhivopis’. Moscow, 1970.
Pozharskaia, M. N. Russkoe teatral’no-dekorativnoe iskusstvo kontsa XIX–nachala XX veka. Moscow, 1970.
Agitatsionno-massovoe iskusstvo pervykh let Oktiabria: Materialy i issledovaniia. Moscow, 1971.
Iskusstvo RSFSR (album). Introductory article by L. I. Akimova [Leningrad, 1972.] (In Russian and English.)
Puti razvitiia russkogo iskusstva kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka: Zhivopis’, grafika, skul’ptura, teatral’no-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo. Edited by N. I. Sokolova and V. V. Vanslov. Moscow, 1972.
Lebedeva, V. Sovetskoe monumental’noe iskusstvo shestidesiatykh godov. Moscow, 1973.
Davydova, M. V. Ocherki istorii russkogo teatra’no-dekoratsionnogo iskusstva XVIII-nachala XX vv. Moscow, 1974.
Decorative-applied art and design
Bobrinskii, A. A. Narodnye russkie dereviannye izdeliia. Predmety do-mashnego, khoziaistvennogo i otchasti tserkovnogo obikhoda (album), issues 1–12,2nd ed. Moscow, 1911–14.
Temerin, S. M. Russkoe prikladnoe iskusstvo: Sovetskie gody. Ocherki. [Moscow, I960.]
Saltykov, A. B. Izbr. trudy. Moscow, 1962.
Russkoe dekorativnoe iskusstvo, vols. 1–3. Edited and with an introduction by A. I. Leonov. Moscow, 1962–65.
Russkie khudozhestvennye promysly: Vtoraia polovina XIX-XX vekov. Moscow, 1965.
Iskusstvo ipromyshlennost’ (collection of articles). Edited by V. P. Tolstoi and K. M. Kantor. Moscow, 1967.
Voronov, V. S. O krest’ianskom iskusstve: Izbr. trudy. Moscow [1972].
Vasilenko, V. M. Narodnoe iskusstvo. Moscow, 1974.

From earliest times to the 18th century. The sources of Russian music can be traced to the culture of the East Slavic tribes. Traces of ancient pagan beliefs have been preserved in ritual songs. Many of the songs survived until recent times, although they had lost any magical or religious significance and were simply sung by people at play. These songs are grouped into two cycles: calendar songs, associated with agricultural work, and family songs, which include laments for the dead and wedding songs. The last type were sung at marriage ceremonies, which took on aspects of a formalized drama. The melodies used in these cycles were based for the most part on primitive pentatonic or diatonic harmonies within a rather limited range. The lyric folksong as an independent genre arose later; its forms were not limited by any rules of ritual. The melodies of lyric songs were more individualized and distinguished by melodiousness, flexibility, and breadth of phrasing.

The heroic epos, which formed into extensive cycles of byliny (epic folk songs; called stariny in Northern Russia), flourished in Kievan Rus’. In byliny the words and melody were inseparable; the latter delineated the poetic form and helps produce a stronger impression on the listener. Along with the tradition of solo rendition of bylinnyi skaz (epic narrative recitative), preserved only in northern Russian regions in the 19th and 20th centuries, there existed a choral, southern Russian tradition, which, in the opinion of most researchers, arose at a later time.

With the formation of the ancient Russian feudal state (seeKIEVAN RUS ‘), new forms of court and social music developed. These include the princely slavy (glorias), sung upon a prince’s ascension to the throne or his return from a campaign and during solemn occasions. In The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, the character of Boian, the famous 11th-century creator of songs, was poetically re-created. Monuments of Old Russian writing and representational art and archaeological remains attest to the wide distribution of instrumental music. Instruments included the gusli, gudok, sopel’ or dudka (a single, vertically held flute), svirel’ (double flute), tsevnitsa or kuvikly (multiple flute), and a number of percussion instruments under the common name of bubny. Long, straight, trumpets, horns, and nakry (a percussion instrument similar to a kettledrum) were used in the military and at solemn state occasions. The skomorokhi (itinerant performers) were the chief bearers of secular musical culture. Despite persecution by the church, they enjoyed popularity with all strata of society. Most lived as wandering minstrels, but there were also sluzhilye (service) skomorokhi included among the servants of the princes and boyars.

The development of church singing—the only form of written professional musical art in ancient Rus’—dates to the adoption of Christianity as the state religion at the end of the tenth century. The melodies used in church services were written down in conventional notation using neumes—symbols that indicated only the general direction of melodic movement and the relationship between rhythmic lengths but not the precise pitch of individual notes. This type of Russian neume came to be known as znamennoe (from znamia, “sign”) or kriukovoe (from kriuk, “hook,” one of the principal signs) notation, whence the name for the choral style itself, znamennoe penie (znamennoe singing) or znamennyi raspev (znamennyi chant). Both the system of musical notation and the melodies were borrowed from Byzantium. Later, the melodic material of znamennoe penie acquired distinct Russian features under the influence of folk songs. Its development proceeded from a predominance of recitative to increasing melodiousness, lengthened melodic phrasing, and expanded melodic range. The znamennyi chant assumed its final, uniquely national forms by the 16th century. In the 17th century, the results of centuries-long development were generalized, theoretical principles were worked out, and the kriukovoe notation was reformed and improved. As a result, manuscripts dating from the mid-17th century using znamennoe notation can be completely deciphered.

In the 17th century, changes in world view and ideology contributed to the rise of new musical forms. The monodic znamennyi chant gradually gave way to partesnoe penie (part-song) a richer, fuller-sounding polyphonic singing with a harmonic structure. This change in style was accompanied by considerable controversy. One of the most energetic defenders of the new style was the Moscow deacon I. T. Korenev, author of the treatise On Liturgical Singing in the Style of Musical Harmonies, which shows an understanding of the inherent importance of music and transcends the narrowly dogmatic medieval view of music as the “handmaiden of religion.”

The theoretical principles of partesnoe penie were formulated by the Ukrainian composer and educator N. P. Diletskii in his Musical Grammar (written in Polish in 1675 under the title Primer of Musical Singing, translated into Church Slavonic in 1677 and into Russian in 1679). In the 1670’s, Diletskii founded a school of masters of polyphonic choral composition in Moscow. The most highly developed form of polyphony was the a capella choral concerto—a large-scale work consisting of several contrasting sections. Part-song concertos were written to texts outside the core of the church liturgy and sometimes even to purely secular texts. The sumptuous style of the part-song concerto, abounding in coloristic effects, had much in common with the Russian baroque style in art and architecture. The most prominent masters of this genre from the late 17th to mid-18th centuries were V. P. Titov, N. Kalashnikov, N. Bavykin, and F. Redrikov.

Another genre that arose in the second half of the 17th century was the kant, a popular, multivoice song based initially upon freely treated religious texts and later also on secular texts of amorous or humorously satirical content. The solemn panegyric kanty that became popular during the reign of Peter I represented a special type. Music occupied an important place in early forms of Russian theater at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. Orchestras composed of European instruments were organized at court and in the homes of the aristocracy in the capital.

In the 18th century, music acquired a variety of functions in social and cultural life as its dependence on religion lessened. Amateur music in the home developed, opera theater was created, and public concerts were presented at the end of the century. At first, these new forms belonged only to a narrow circle of the feudal aristocracy, but they later spread to broader strata of the population. An Italian opera group was organized at court in the 1730’s, and foreign opera companies appeared in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the 1750’s. Major Italian composers working in Russia included B. Galuppi, T. Traetta, G. Paisiello, G. Sarti, and D. Cimarosa. The Petrovskii Theater (ultimately to become the Bolshoi Theater) was opened in Moscow in 1780. Dramatic, opera, and ballet productions were staged there, but the performing troupes were not yet separate from one another. Beginning in 1783, musical productions were presented in St. Petersburg at the Kamennyi (Bol’shoi) Theater (now the Leningrad Theater of Opera and Ballet). Operas were presented in a number of provincial cities, as well as in the serf theaters of the Sheremetev, Vorontsov, and other large, serf-owning families.

The Russian national school. A Russian school of musical composition took form in the last third of the 18th century. Its most prominent representatives were M. S. Berezovskii, D. S. Bortnianskii, V. A. Pashkevich, E. I. Fomin, and I. E. Khan-doshkin. It emerged under the direct influence of the ideas of the Russian Enlightenment. Its characteristic features were the democratic, original, and national nature of its images and an interest in themes and subjects from the life of the people. One of the most important sources for the work of the composers of this school was the Russian folk song, which attracted the attention of wide circles of society. The first printed collections appeared at this time: V. F. Trutovskii’s Collection of Russian Common Songs With Notes (1776–95) and N. A. L’vov and I. Prach’s Collection of Russian Folk Songs With Their Parts, Set to Music By Ivan Prach (1790).

The attention of 18th-century Russian composers was centered on opera, based on the alternation of vocal passages with scenes of spoken dialogue. The model of this type of sung comic opera was M. M. Sokolovskii’s The Miller—Magician, Swindler, and Matchmaker (1779, text by A. O. Ablesimov), which made use of genuine folk melodies. A vivid national character distinguishes M. A. Matinskii and Pashkevich’s As You Live, So Are You Known (or The St. Petersburg Bazaar; 1782) and Fomin’s Coachmen at the Relay (or Unexpected Play, 1787; text by N. A. L’vov). Authors of operatic librettos included N. P. Nikolev, I. A. Krylov, Ia. B. Kniazhnin, and other 18th-century Russian writers. Their best works combine realistic characters and treatment with a denunciation of serfdom. In melodrama—a genre contiguous to opera—Fomin wrote a work on a high tragic plane: Orpheus (1792; text by Kniazhnin).

The beginnings of national symphonic composition can be found in operatic overtures of the 18th century. In instrumental chamber music, the works of the virtuoso violinist Khandosh-kin were the most noteworthy; Khandoshkin wrote sonatas for solo violin and variations on Russian folk-song themes. M. F. Dubianskii and O. A. Kozlovskii were popular composers of romance-type sentimental lyric songs, known as rossiiskie pesni (“Russian songs”).

In opera composition, the growth of romantic influences in the early 19th century led to interest in fairy-tale subjects, as in S. I. Davydov’s Lesta, the Dnieper Rusalka (1805), and folk-epic themes, as in C. A. Cavos’ Il’ia the Bogatyr’ (1806, libretto by Krylov). A turbulent romanticism distinguished Kozlovskii’s music written for tragedies by B. A. Ozerov, A. A. Shakhovskii, and P. A. Katenin.

The upsurge of patriotism early in the 19th century found expression in S. A. Degtiarev’s oratorio Minin and Pozharskii, or the Liberation of Moscow (1811) and Cavos’ opera Ivan Susanin (1815, text by Shakhovskii). It was also responsible for the growing interest in the Russian folk song, fostered by D. N. Kashin (with his collection Russian Folk Songs, three books, 1833–34) and LA. Rupin.

The major representative of Russian operatic romanticism in the era preceding Glinka was A. N. Verstovskii. His works, with their dark and mystical coloring, combined national legends and historical subjects with popular folk elements. His best-known opera is Askold’s Tomb (1835, based on the novel by M. N. Zagoskin). In vocal chamber music, romantic trends helped expand the music’s emotional range and enrich the means of expression. The works of A. D. Zhilin, N. A. Titov, and N. S. Titov displayed certain features of exalted sentimen-talism. A. A. Aliab’ev’s lyric works incorporated new motifs related to the moods of the progressive gentry intelligentsia in the post-Decembrist era—loneliness, dissatisfaction with reality, and hopes for a better future. The ballad genre, typical of romanticism, is best represented in the works of Verstovskii. Simplicity and a closeness to popular forms distinguish the vocal works of A. E. Varlamov and A. L. Gurilev.

The era of high, classical flowering of Russian music began with M. Glinka in the 1830’s and 1840’s. A profound and richly realistic perception of the world is combined in Glinka’s music with ideal perfection of form, harmonic clarity, and completeness of artistic realization. With Glinka, the Russian school became one of the leading national schools of European music. Glinka portrayed different aspects of Russian reality in various musical genres. Two operas hold the central place in his legacy: Ivan Susanin (1836) and Ruslan and Liudmila (1842), both of which display vividly national characters and a grandeur and thoroughness of concept. Glinka was also a remarkable master of the symphonic genre. His Kamarinskaia (1848), Spanish Overtures (Jota aragonesa, 1845, and Summer Night in Madrid, 1851), and other orchestral compositions formed the basis for the Russian national school of symphonic composition. His art songs reflected the varied world of human emotional experiences; those set to verses by Pushkin are outstanding for their profoundly poetic insight and subtle treatment.

The music of Glinka’s younger contemporary A. S. Dargomyzhskii paralleled critical realism in Russian literature, for example, the opera Rusalka (The Mermaid, 1855, based on Pushkin’s drama) and his art songs to various texts, marked by a spirit of denunciation and satire. Dargomyzhskii sought the basis for realistic musical expression in a faithful reproduction of human speech. Relying on speech intonations, he created accurate, sharp characterizations distinguished by their great verisimilitude and ability to re-create a social type. Dargomyzhskii’s creative principles were most radically embodied in his opera The Stone Guest, set to the full text of one of Pushkin’s “Little Tragedies;” completed by Cui and Rimsky-Korsakov in 1872.

From the late 1850’s through the 1860’s, the rigid barriers typical of feudal society that restricted different forms of music to a particular class were decisively broken down. Concert activity became broader in scope, and professional musical education began. The Russian Society of Music was influential in these developments; the society was founded in St. Petersburg in 1859 at the initiative of the pianist, composer, and music and social figure A. G. Rubinstein. A branch of the society, headed by the pianist’s brother, N. A. Rubinstein, was established in Moscow in 1860. The society conducted regular series of symphonic and, later, chamber-music concerts. It also founded the Music Classes, from which developed the St. Petersburg Conservatory (1862) and Moscow Conservatory (1866). In 1862 the Free School of Music was opened in St. Petersburg, which aimed at providing a general music education. The Free School of Music also conducted concert activities, popularizing mainly the works of Russian composers.

The revolutionary-democratic ideas of the 1860’s were reflected in the music of a group of young composers who came to be known as the Russian Five. The group was headed by Ba-lakirev and included Borodin, Cui, Mussorgsky, and Rimsky-Korsakov. The group’s members considered themselves the heirs of Glinka and Dargomyzhskii and defended the principles of national character and realism and the responsibility to serve progressive social ideals; in many ways, Tchaikovsky was close to the group. The innovative striving of the Russian Five was opposed by the moderate academic school, centered in the St. Petersburg Conservatory and headed by A. G. Rubinstein.

Musical criticism played an important role in the struggle to assert the progressive national basis of Russian music. One of its first outstanding representatives, a friend and sympathizer of Glinka, was V. F. Odoevskii, who supported the composers of the new generation in the 1860’s. V. V. Stasov, who shared the views of the Russian revolutionary democrats, was a prominent champion and propagandist for the Russian Five. A combination of a high level of scholarship with a publicistic approach characterized the criticism of A. N. Serov, who also contributed to the development of Russian opera as a composer. G. A. Lar-osh was one of the best interpreters and promoters of the works of Glinka and Tchaikovsky.

Russian music of the second half of the 19th century contributed one of the most dramatic chapters to the history of music. Outstanding compositions were written, distinguished by a depth and richness of realistic content and by a uniqueness of language and means of artistic expression. Characters from national history, literature, and the folk epos were portrayed in a series of monumental operatic canvases. National historical themes were treated in different ways in Borodin’s patriotic epic opera Prince Igor (1890) and in Mussorgsky’s musical folk dramas Boris Godunov (1869; second version, 1872) and Khovanshchina (1872–80; completed by Rimsky-Korsakov, 1883). Rimsky-Korsakov turned chiefly to themes and subjects from fairy tales and legends, as in The Snow Maiden (a “spring tale,” 1881) and Sadko (an “opera-bylina” 1896). Tchaikovsky, in his “Lyric Scenes” of Eugene Onegin (1878) and in the psychological musical drama The Queen of Spades (1890), showed a profound interest in the inner life of the human soul. Examples of the realistic comedy genre include Rimsky-Korsakov’s May Night (1878), Mussorgsky’s Sorochintsy Fair (1874–80; completed by Cui, 1915), and Tchaikovsky’s Cherevichki (The Little Shoes, sometimes known in the West as Oxana’s Caprices, 1885; original version under the title Vakula the Smith, 1874).

Tchaikovsky and Borodin created a nationally unique type of Russian symphony. In Tchaikovsky’s symphonies, striking dramatic tension and sharply conflicting juxtapositions are combined with realistic elements suggesting everyday life. Tchaikovsky also composed a great number of works in other symphonic genres, including programmatic symphonic overtures on themes of high tragedy: Romeo and Juliet (based on Shakespeare, 1869) and Francesca da Rimini (based on Dante, 1876).

Borodin’s symphonies, especially his Second (Bogatyrs’) Symphony (1876), are characterized by epic images and a broad, flowing development.

Rimsky-Korsakov was a master of color in orchestration; his musical pictures of nature, everyday life, and fairy-tale fantasy succeed by their brilliance and imagery, as in his Spanish Capriccio (1887) and Scheherezade (1888). Another prominent representative of national symphonic composition was Balaki-rev, who developed Russian folk and oriental elements in his orchestral works (Overture on Three Russian Themes, 1858, and Tamara, 1882).

The vocal chamber music of Russian composers reflected the images of classical Russian poetry. The lyric songs of Tchaikovsky won popularity as a result of their emotional verisimilitude and the forceful, vivid expression of direct feeling. In Mussorgsky’s treatment, the art song is often transformed into a brief, dramatic scene realistically depicting a social type. Epic, landscape, and folk-genre images can be found in the art songs of Borodin, Balakirev, and Rimsky-Korsakov.

Polished examples of instrumental chamber music were created by Tchaikovsky (three string quartets and the piano trio In Memory of a Great Artist, 1882) and Borodin (two string quartets, 1879 and 1881, and a piano quintet, 1862). Tchaikovsky’s Concerto No. 1. for Piano and Orchestra (1875), Balakirev’s Islamei (1869), and Mussorgsky’s Pictures From An Exhibition (1874) represent important contributions to the piano concert literature.

Tchaikovsky’s ballets, Swan Lake (1876), The Sleeping Beauty (1889), and The Nutcracker (1892), represented a new stage in the development of musical art. In them, music became a leading component of drama.

New composers emerged at the turn of the 20th century. A. K. Glazunov was a master of large-scale instrumental forms; he wrote eight symphonies and numerous other symphonic and chamber compositions, as well as ballets, including Raymonda (1897). The musician-philosopher S. I. Taneev strove to embody profound philosophic concepts; among his works are the cantatas John of Damascus (1884) and At the Reading of the Psalm (1915), the opera Oresteia (1894), and the Symphony in C minor (1898). A. K. Liadov was a subtle miniaturist who wrote a variety of piano pieces, including preludes and études, and orchestral works on folk themes, including Eight Russian Folk Songs (1906), Baba Yaga (1904), and Kikimora (1910). Other composers of the new generation were A. S. Arenskii, Vasilii S. Kalinnikov, M. M. Ippolitov-Ivanov, A. T. Grechaninov, and S. M. Liapunov.

Early 20th-century Russian music was marked by the appearance of new features, which included direct or indirect reflections of the growth of the revolutionary movement. In allegorical form, Rimsky-Korsakov embodied the hopes of Russian society for liberation in his operas Kashchei the Immortal (1902) and The Golden Cockerel (1907). S. V. Rachmaninoff and A. N. Scriabin were the most important and typical representatives of this era in music. The works of both composers are marked by a stormy, restless fervor, but they also differ in many respects. Rachmaninoff’s compositions are closely tied to the heritage of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Borodin and with the Russian realism of literature and art. In them, images of Russian nature and life play a major role. Scriabin’s compositions are more subjective and refined. Rejecting romantic traditions, Scriabin was closer to symbolism. His later works were written under the influence of idealist philosophy; in them, dreams of the bright future of humanity acquire mystical-utopian overtones. Piano music occupies the foreground for both composers. Rachmaninoff’s characteristically sweeping, at times decorative and fresco-like, style was manifested with especially striking force in his four concerti for piano and orchestra (1891–1926) and his Etudes-Tableaux (1911–1917). The chamber genres were more typical of Scriabin’s works: sonatas, preludes, and programmatic miniatures with symbolic titles. Both composers were also profoundly original symphonists. Rachmaninoff’s legacy also includes important art songs and operas.

N. K. Metner’s compositions are almost exclusively piano pieces and vocal chamber works, distinguished by an adherence to artistic principles, culture, and a mastery of compositional technique.

The second decade of the 20th century saw the first works by I. F. Stravinsky and S. S. Prokofiev, both of whom strove to counterpose the hypertrophied emotionalism of late romanticism and the brittle refinement of modernist schools with healthy simplicity, strength, and rhythmic energy. Their creative paths subsequently diverged. Even in the early years, Stravinsky allied himself with musical life abroad and almost completely departed from national traditions. Prokofiev, on the other hand, became one of the most prominent representatives of Soviet music.

A high level of conducting and individual performance marked the early 20th century. The Russian vocal school, whose foundations had been laid in the 19th century by O. A. Petrov, F. I. Stravinskii, and other singers, produced such artists as F. I. Chaliapin, A. V. Nezhdanova, L. V. Sobinov, and I. V. Ershov. The greatest pianist of the 20th century was Rachmaninoff. The activity of outstanding Russian performers helped popularize the finest compositions of Russian composers and contributed to the growing world recognition of Russian music. Many major foreign composers of the 20th century, such as Debussy, Ravel, and Janáćek, stressed the innovative importance of Russian music and turned to it as a source of new images and means of musical expression.

The victory of the October Revolution of 1917 marked a new stage in the development of music. The party and government undertook measures to provide the most favorable conditions to foster musical culture for the masses and to convert music into an effective means of communist education. In the period when the foundations of Soviet artistic culture were being laid, an important role was played by musicians of the older generation, who forged a living link between the prerevolutionary past of Russian music and the new Soviet era. Transitional composers included Glazunov, Ippolitov-Ivanov, A. D. Kastal’skii, R. M. Glière, S. N. Vasilenko, A. F. Gedike, and M. F. Gnesin. Other outstanding artists included the performers and teachers K. N. Igumnov, A. B. Gol’denveizer, and L. V. Nikolaev and the critics and music scholars V. G. Karatygin, A. V. Ossovskii, B. V. Asaf’ev, B. L. Iavorskii, and M. V. Ivanov-Boretskii.

After October 1917. Russian music of the post-October period is a part of the multinational musical culture of the USSR. It has developed in close artistic collaboration with the art of all the peoples of the country and occupies the leading role in this interaction. Many Russian musicians, working in various Union and autonomous republics, aided the growth of the musical culture of the peoples of these republics and the development of contemporary forms of professional art. In turn, Russian composers enriched their own work through inspiration from images of the life of the fraternal peoples and from the unique colors, melodies, and rhythms of their musical folklore.

Early in the period Soviet music acquired features of a militant, civic-oriented art that could mobilize the masses to the struggle for communist ideals. Such features can be seen in the songs of the Civil War and later in the first attempts to embody modern revolutionary themes in the operas, symphonies, and cantatas of the 1920’s. The fulfillment of new tasks was connected with the struggle against schematism, vulgarization, and leftist and formalist tendencies alien to Soviet art. Such shortcomings were overcome under party leadership; Soviet music was established on the principles of socialist realism and assumed an important place in the cultural life of the people.

The outstanding achievements of Soviet symphonic music received worldwide recognition. The best works are permeated with high, humanist inspiration, expressive power, and depth of philosophic thought. The founder of Russian Soviet symphonic writing was N. Ia. Miaskovskii, the composer of 27 symphonies. His work combines an adherence to classical national traditions with a living response to the phenomena of contemporary reality. The greatest Soviet symphonist was Shostakovich, whose works reflect the sharpest conflicts of contemporary life. The symphonies of Prokofiev are marked by their epic scale and vivid expression of the Russian national idiom. Other substantial contributions to the development of Soviet symphonic composition were made by V. V. Shcherbachev, L. K. Knipper, V. Ia. Shebalin, G. N. Popov, M. S. Vainberg, and N. I. Peiko.

The 1930’s saw the first successes in the creation of Soviet opera: I. I. Dzerzhinskii’s The Quiet Don (1935), T. N. Khrennikov’s Into the Storm (1939; second version 1952), and Prokofiev’s Semen Kotko (1939). One of the most outstanding Soviet operas is Shostakovich’s Katerina Izmailova (or Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, 1932; new version 1962). The concept for Prokofiev’s monumental, patriotic epic War and Peace (based on Tolstoy’s novel, 1943; second version 1946; final version 1952) was born during the years of the Great Patriotic War. The theme of revolutionary history was embodied in Iu. A. Shaporin’s opera The Decembrists (1947–53). Outstanding among the operas written on contemporary themes in the postwar years are S. M. Slonimskii’s Virineia (1967) and R. K. Shchedrin’s Not for Love Alone (staged 1961). Many operas were written by Soviet Russian composers on themes from national and foreign classical literature, including D. B. Kaba-levskii’s Colas Breugnon (The Craftsman of Clamecy, based on a work by R. Rolland, 1938, second version 1968).

The Soviet ballet underwent a radical renewal. Following the ballet music traditions of Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, and Stravinsky, Soviet composers affirmed the role of music as the determining element in choreographic drama. There were convincing realizations of the people in revolution in Glière’s The Red Poppy (or The Red Flower, 1927; second version 1949), Asaf’ev’s The Flames of Paris (1932), and A. A. Krein’s Laurencia (1937). Prokofiev proved to be a bold performer with his ballet Romeo and Juliet (1936), a profound musical-choreographic tragedy of compelling force. Many composers of ballets turned to dramatic, epic, and philosophic themes, as in A. I. Khachaturian’s Spartacus (1954). Successes by composers currently writing ballets include A. P. Petrov’s The Creation of the World (1971) and Shchedrin’s Anna Karenina (1972).

The genres of choral music, from the song to the oratorio and cantata, have acquired particular importance. The sources for Soviet songwriting date to the revolutionary fighting songs of the proletariat. Certain songs that appeared during the Civil War became popular throughout the country. Reflecting various aspects of reality, Soviet song varies in content and melodic and intonational structure. It has penetrated deeply into everyday life and accompanies all important social and political events. During the Great Patriotic War, songs played an enormous role in mobilizing the people. In the postwar years, they have become a banner of struggle for peace and hard-won achievements in the building of communism. Writers of popular songs include A. V. Aleksandrov, M. I. Blanter, A. A. Davi-denko, I. O. Dunaevskii, V. G. Zakharov, E. S. Kolmanovskii, B. A. Mokrousov, V. I. Muradeli, A. G. Novikov, A. I. Os-trovskii, A. N. Pakhmutova, A. P. Petrov, D. Ia. Pokrass, V. P. Solov’ev-Sedoi, S. S. Tulikov, O. B. Fel’tsman, A. G. Fliar-kovskii, M. G. Fradkin, Ia. A. Frenkel’, An. N. Kholminov, T. N. Khrennikov, and A. Ia. Eshpai.

The song is the most mass-oriented musical genre, and it is incorporated in many large-scale works, such as operas and symphonies. It forms the basis for the best operettas, including those of Dunaevskii and G. S. Miliutin and for music for films and dramatic productions. In the oratorio and cantata, the song element is combined with elements of opera and symphonic development. Outstanding examples of the cantata-oratorio genre include Prokofiev’s Alexander Nevsky (1938), Shaporin’s On the Field of Kulikovo (1939), Emel’ian Pugachev by M. V. Koval’ (1939), and G. V. Sviridov’s Poems in Memory of Sergei Esenin (1955) and Oratorio Pathétique (1959).

Composers who have made a contribution to the development of vocal and instrumental chamber music include A. N. Aleksandrov, Miaskovskii, Prokofiev, Sviridov, Shaporin, Shebalin, Shostakovich, B. N. Chaikovskii, B. I. Tishchenko, and V. A. Gavrilin.

Russian Soviet culture has been represented by prominent conductors and soloists. Leading conductors include V. I. Suk, N. S. Golovanov, A. M. Pazovskii, V. A. Dranishnikov, A. V. Gauk, K. K. Ivanov, S. A. Samosud, A. Sh. Melik-Pashaev, Iu. F. Faier, E. A. Mravinskii, N. G. Rakhlin, B. E. Khaikin, K. P. Kondrashin, G. N. Rozhdestvenskii, and E. F. Svetlanov. Prominent choral directors include A. V. Aleksandrov, M. G. Klimov, N. M. Danilin, A. V. Sveshnikov, G. A. Dmitrevskii, A. S. Stepanov, A. V. Rybnov, A. A. Iurlov, K. B. Ptitsa, and V. G. Sokolov. Outstanding pianists include K. N. Igumnov, A. B. Gol’denveizer, G. G. Neigauz, S. E. Feinberg, V. V. So-fronitskii, L. N. Oborin, E. G. Gilel’s, and S. T. Rikhter. Violinists include M. B. Poliakin, D. F. Oistrakh, and L. B. Kogan. Cellists include S. M. Kozolupov, S. N. Knushevitskii, D. B. Shafran, and M. L. Rostropovich.

Outstanding operatic performers have included the female vocalists V. V. Barsova, K. G. Derzhinskaia, M. P. Maksakova, N. A. Obukhova, S. P. Preobrazhenskaia, E. A. Stepanova, I. K. Arkhipova, and G. P. Vishnevskaia, and the male vocalists P. Z. Andreev, I. S. Kozlovskii, S. Ia. Lemeshev, S. I. Migai, G. M. Nelepp, N. N. Ozerov, V. R. Petrov, A. S. Pirogov, G. S. Piro-gov, N. K. Pechkovskii, M. O. Reizen, and M. D. Mikhailov.

The years of Soviet power have witnessed the creation of an extensive network of musical theaters, philharmonic orchestras, performing troupes, and general and specialized institutions of musical education. New centers of musical culture have arisen in cities formerly on the Russian periphery and in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR. Many peoples of the RSFSR whose musical culture began forming only after the October Revolution have produced their own national cadres of qualified musical interpreters and composers. Among the latter are N. G. Zhiganov, M. M. Kazhlaev, G.-R. Sinisalo, and B. B. Iampilov. These performers and composers have a firm command of the complex forms of contemporary musical art. They have created national operas, symphonies, and works in other genres using as a foundation the rich traditions of musical folklore.

Russian music has had a notable influence on the creative work of a number of foreign composers. Many works by Russian and Soviet composers are popular throughout the world, and Soviet musicians, singers, and performing troupes enjoy high prestige.

In 1975 the RSFR had 42 musical theaters, including 15 theaters of opera and ballet, 8 of musical comedy and operetta, one musical-dramatic theater, and eight concert-hall theaters. In addition there were 24 symphony orchestras, eight orchestras of folk and wind instruments, 34 chamber orchestras and instrumental ensembles, and 19 professional choral groups. Professional musicians are trained in 13 conservatories and other institutions of higher musical education, 114 music schools, ten schools of the performing arts, two choral schools, six secondary specialized music schools, and approximately 3,000 children’s musical schools.

The Composers’ Union of the RSFSR was organized in 1960. Numerous music competitions and festivals are held in the cities of the RSFSR, including the Moscow Stars and Russian Winter festivals in Moscow and the White Nights Festival in Leningrad.


Findeizen, N. Ocherki po istorii muzyki v Rossii s drevneishikh vremen do kontsa XVIII v., vols. 1–2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1928–29.
Livanova, T. N. Ocherki i materialy po istorii russkoi muzykal’noi kul’tury, fasc. 1. Moscow, 1938.
Livanova, T. N. Russkaia muzykal’naia kul’tura XVIII veka v ee sviaziakh s literaturoi, teatrom i bytom, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1952–53.
Istoriia russkoi muzyki, vols. 1–2. Edited by M. S. Pekelis. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940.
Keldysh, Iu. Istoriia russkoi muzyki, parts 1–3. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947–54.
Keldysh, Iu. Russkaia sovetskaia muzyka. Moscow, 1958. (Muzykal’naia kul’tura soiuznykh respublik: RSFSR, fasc. 3.)
Keldysh, Iu. Russkaia muzyka XVIII veka. Moscow, 1965.
Asaf’ev, B. V. Izbr. trudy, vols. 1–5. Moscow, 1952–57.
Asaf’ev, B. V. Russkaia muzyka: XIX i nachalo XX v. Leningrad, 1968.
Istoriia russkoi muzyki, vols. 1–3. [Edited by N. V. Tumanina.] Moscow, 1957–60.
Istoriia russkoi sovetskoi muzyki, vols. 1–4. Moscow, 1956–63.
Muzykal’naia kul’tura avtonomnykh respublik RSFSR. Edited by G. K. Litinskii. Moscow, 1957.
Popova, T. Russkoe narodnoe muzykal’noe tvorchestvo., 2nd ed., vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1963–64.


Dance. The various expressive elements of Russian folk choreography developed in tribal society under the influence of pagan cults and the way of life. Dances, games, and rituals were directly linked with the life of the people and, in a unique way, reflected the people’s attitude toward nature.

After the establishment of Christianity, the existing pagan festivals became more austere and formalized. From the late tenth through 11th century, Byzantine culture influenced the development of Russian dance movements. The church regarded dance and other popular amusements as “temptation of Satan” and strove to eradicate dance as a vestige of pagan cults.

As church music spread and Russian polyphonic singing developed, Russian dance became enriched by elements of improvisation. The vividly expressed national character of Russian music became the basis for thematic lively dances and for round dances (khorovody). Folk and round dances were popular at all levels of Russian society until the 17th century, when Russian culture began to feel the European impact. Folk dances came to be considered an “unworthy occupation” by the privileged. Traditional folk dances were preserved in Rus’ by skomorokhi (itinerant performers) and through various theatrical presentations.

At the turn of the 18th century, the new European dances were introduced, including the minuet, contredanse, and polonaise, replacing the Russian folk dance in the cities. However, in city outskirts, inhabited by workers, and above all in villages, the traditional forms and national features of Russian dance continued developing. At posidelki (village evening gatherings for working and socializing), songs and round dances (pletni) preserved the traditions and richness of folk art from one generation to the next, and Russian folk choreography continued developing.

The song determined whether the round dance was slow, dignified, lyrical, or gay. The basic element of Russian dance included changing, sliding, and quick steps, the garmoshka (“accordion” in Russian; a line of dancers who move together and apart in a movement similar to that of an accordion), verevochka (a skipping dance step whereby each leg is successively raised bent at the knee and then lowered behind the other to the floor—all suggestive of a braided rope), motalochka (a sliding step in which the feet are first placed toe to toe, then heel to heel, then toe to toe, and so on), heel stamping, quick-tempo finales, hand clapping, prisiadki (kicking out from a squatting position), and turns. Dance often reproduced the movements of work processes, as in the lenok (flax dance), sapozhnik (shoemaker dance), veretentse (spinning-wheel dance), and kapustka (cabbage dance). There were also dances that portrayed both human characteristics and aspects of animal behavior, such as the Spiria (a dance depicting one of the human characteristics), Timonia (improvised round dance of Southern Russia), bychok (bull dance), gusachok (goose dance), zhuravl’, (crane dance), utushka (duck dance), and lebedushka (swan dance). This group of dances also included the popular dance known as the trepak (an improvised dance characterized by quick tempo and footwork).

Among Russian dances performed in pairs, the golubinaia pliaska, or golubets (doves’ dance), was especially interesting. There was a great variety of perepliasy (dances of a competitive nature), including the kamarinskaia (an improvised dance performed by males), the barynia (a dance performed by a solo dancer or in pairs, characterized by its liveliness and variety of movements), and the kazachok (a spirited dance performed in pairs). Dances were later accompanied by chastushki (folk ditties, often humorous). The quadrille was a Russian dance popular in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In the 18th century, Russian dance was first presented on the professional stage in comic operas, for example, M. M. Soko-lovskii’s The Miller—Magician, Swindler, and Matchmaker (1779), M. A. Matinskii and V. A. Pashkevich’s As You Live, So You Are Known (also known as The St. Petersburg Merchants’ Arcade; 1782), and E. I. Fomin’s The Coachmen at the Relay (also known as A Dance Party by Chance; 1787).

In the first quarter of the 19th century, Russian choreographers introduced Russian dance into such patriotic divertissements as The New Heroine, or the Cossack Woman (1810; musical potpourri with choreography by I.I. Val’berkh), The Militia, or Love for the Fatherland (1812; music by C. Cavos, choreography by Val’berkh and Auguste), and Semik, or Promenade in Mar’ia’s Grove (1815; music by S. I. Da-vydov, choreography by I. M. Ablets). In the second half of the 19th century, a special manner of performing various Russian dances in ballet productions developed as a result of a desire to beautify and ennoble “crude” dances and “common” gestures; this distorted the national character, poetry, and originality of the dances.

Russian folk choreography greatly developed after the October Revolution of 1917. The Russian Folk dance was influenced by a new type of professional choreography—the stage folk dance—which was developed in dance ensembles. New stage forms of national dance were also choreographed for dance groups appearing with Russian national choruses. Soldier perepliasy performed by military ensembles became another type of Russian dance.

The Folk Dance Ensemble of the USSR (Moiseev Dance Company) was founded in 1937, the Berezka Folk Dance Ensemble in 1948, and the Dance Ensemble of the Peoples of Siberia in 1960. In 1938 a dance group was also organized for the Pi-atnitskii Russian Choir. Other choruses that perform with dance groups include the Severnyi, Voronezh, Omsk, and Ural’sk choruses. Performances by amateur Russian folk-dancing groups are popular. Folk-dancing festivals are held in Arkhangelsk, Kursk, Kostroma, Astrakhan, and other oblasts.

Dances of the peoples inhabiting the autonomous republics of the RSFSR have developed simultaneously with the art of the Russian people. National song and dance ensembles have been organized, for example, the Bashkir Folk Dance Ensemble in 1939. (For information on other groups see the section “Music” in the articles on the autonomous republics of the RSFSR.) Creative work is methodically carried on in all ensembles to collect, study, and stage the dances of the peoples of the respective republics. As the skill of the dancers develops, their works becomes increasing popular both within and outside the USSR.

Centers for the systematic collection and dissemination of Russian folk choreography are the oblast houses of people’s arts and the N. K. Krupskaia Central House of People’s Arts in Moscow. Researchers of Russian folk dance include T. A. Usti-nova, T. S. Tkachenko, I. A. Moiseev, N. N. Nadezhdina, A. E. Chizhova, A. A. Klimov, M. Ia. Zhornitskaia, A. A. Borzov, and V. I. Ural’skaia.


Bachinskaia, N. Russkie khorovody i khorovodnye pesni. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
Tkachenko, T. Narodnyi tanets. Moscow, 1954.
Ustinova, T. A. Russkie tantsy. Moscow, 1955.
Ustinova, T. A. Berech’ krasotu russkogo tantsa. Moscow, 1959.
Chizhova, A. E. Tantsuet “Berezka.” Moscow, 1967.
Goleizovskii, K. Obrazy russkoi narodnoi khoreografii. Moscow, 1964.
Ural’skaia, V. I. Poiski i resheniia: Tanets v russkom khore. Moscow, 1973.
Ballet. Russian ballet emerged in the second half of the 17th century. The Ballet of Orpheus and Eurydice, staged by N. Lim at the court of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich in 1673, marked the beginning of occasional ballet performances.
In the 1730’s regular operatic and ballet performances were given at the court of Anna Ivanovna. The ballet masters J. B. Landé and A. Rinaldo (better known as Fusano) staged dance scenes for operas. In 1738 a school of ballet and dance (now the Leningrad Choreographic School) was founded in St. Petersburg. Instruction in ballet was begun at the Moscow Orphanage in 1773. The orphanage’s dance classes became the basis for the Moscow Academic Choreographic School.
By the late 18th century, well-known foreign composers and choreographers were working in St. Petersburg and Moscow in court and public theaters. Russian performers who preserved the national character of dance included T. S. Bublikov, G. I. Raikov, and A. Stepanova.
In the 1760’s ballets in the tradition of classicism were staged in St. Petersburg. F. Hilferding came to the city in 1759 and worked there until 1765. He choreographed The Return of Spring, or the Victory of Flora Over Boreas (1760; music by J. Startzer). G. Angiolini periodically worked in St. Petersburg between 1766 and 1786. He choreographed Didone Abbandonata (1766) and Semira (1772), the latter based on A. P. Sumarokov’s tragedy. Both ballets were set to Angiolini’s own music. Hilferding and Angiolini staged the first ballets in Russia depicting human conflicts and the first ballets d’action.
At the turn of the 19th century, native composers, such as S. N. Titov and S. I. Davydov, began composing ballet music. Russified foreign composers, including C. Cavos and F. E. Scholtz, also composed at this time. The Russian dancer and choreographer I.I. Val’berkh first attempted a synthesis of the Russian performing style with the dramatic pantomime and virtuoso dance technique characteristic of Italian ballet and the structural forms of the French school. He staged productions that reflected melodramatic sentimentalism. Val’berkh’s ballets advocated moral ideas and condemned vice. Val’berkh was the first to portray contemporary life. The characters of his ballets, for example, in The New Werther (1799; music by Titov), were residents of Moscow. In divertissements, Val’berkh depicted the events of the Patriotic War of 1812, for example, in The Militia, or Love for the Fatherland (1812; music by Cavos). I. P. Berilova and E. I. Kolosova were among his students.
I. M. Ablets, I. K. Lobanov, and other choreographers also staged patriotic divertissements. By the late 18th century, Russia had many ballet troupes composed of serfs, who supplemented the troupes of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and other cities.
The art of ballet developed mainly in the St. Petersburg and Moscow troupes that belonged to the Directorate of the Imperial Theaters. The choreographer C. Didelot, who worked in St. Petersburg from 1800 through the 1830’s, helped advance Russian ballet to a leading position in Europe. He believed that music and choreographic dramaturgy should be coordinated in a ballet production. In Didelot’s preromantic ballets based on mythological subjects, there were both solo and corps de ballet dances; these ballets included Zéphire et Flore (1804), Cupid and Psyche (1809), and A cis and Galatea (1816).
Didelot psychologized and dramatized pantomime in his heroic-tragic ballets, which included The Hungarian Hut, or the Famous Exiles (1817; music by E. Venua) and Raoul de Créquis, or the Return From the Crusades (1819; music by Cavos and T. V. Zhuchkovskii). In 1823 he staged The Prisoner of the Caucasus, or the Shadow of the Betrothed, based on Pushkin’s narrative poem and with music by Cavos. M. I. Danilova, A. I. Istomina, E. A. Teleshova, A. S. Novitskaia, Auguste (A. Poireau), and N. O. Gol’ts became famous in Didelot’s productions. A. P. Glushkovskii began, in 1812, to choreograph ballets for the Petrovskii Theater (later Bolshoi Theater) in Moscow. Some of the ballets he staged were based on Pushkin’s works, for example, Ruslan and Liudmila, or the Overthrow of the Evil Sorcerer Chernomor (1821; music by Scholtz), and The Black Shawl, or Infidelity Punished (a musical potpourri, 1831). Three Belts, or the Russian Sandrillon (1826; music by Scholtz) was based on themes from V. A. Zhukovskii.
Glushkovskii was the first theorist and historian of Russian ballet. He also trained the Moscow troupe to perform the romantic repertoire. T. I. Glushkovskaia and A. I. Voronina-Iva-nova were among the ballerinas who danced in his productions.
In the first third of the 19th century, Russian ballet achieved artistic maturity and took the form of a national school characterized by liveliness, truthfulness, a profound content, and a virtuoso dance technique. The Bolshoi Theater was built in Moscow in 1825, whereupon the Moscow ballet troupe acquired a technically well-equipped stage. By the early 1830’s, outstanding ballet troupes were performing in Moscow and St. Petersburg, for the most part in colorful and opulent productions, some of which were staged by the French choreographers A. Blache and A. Titus. The dance scenes in M. I. Glinka’s operas greatly influenced Russian ballet music; their action, narrative, and descriptive passages are executed in the national idiom and provide an orchestral development of the characters.
In the 1830’s the thematics and style of the ballet theater were radically transformed under the influence of romanticism, and two schools of romantic ballet emerged. One school asserted the incompatibility of dreams and reality on the lyrical plane, and supernatural beings predominated in its ballets. Two representative works of this school were La Sylphide (1835, St. Petersburg, music by J. Schneitzhoeffer, choreography by F. Taglioni) and Giselle (1842, St. Petersburg, music by A. Adam, choreography by J. Coralli). The other school gravitated toward concrete dramatism, as exemplified by La Esmeralda (1848, music by C. Pugni, choreography by J. Perrot), Catarina, the Bandit’s Daughter (1850, music by Pugni, choreography by Perrot), and Le Corsaire (1858, music by Adam, choreography by Perrot). In a new and aesthetically promising way romanticism combined dance and pantomime and made dance the culmination of action. The art of the romantic ballerinas M. Taglioni and F. Elssler was continued on the Russian stage by E. I. Andreianova in St. Petersburg and E. A. Sankovskaia in Moscow.
In the mid-19th century realism flourished in the Russian arts, although the ballet was little affected. Entertaining productions included The Little Humpbacked Horse (1864, music by Pugni, choreography by A. Saint-Léon), The Goldfish (1867, music by L. Minkus, choreography by A. Saint-Léon), and The Fern, or Ivan Kupala Eve (1867, music by Iu. Gerber, choreography by S. P. Sokolov). These productions consisted of a series of divertissements that were barely related to each other in subject matter and that were characterized by the sentimental use of folk themes. Ballerinas nevertheless mastered virtuoso technique. Strict standardization of line and technique was introduced. Pantomime became secondary, and its movements were also standardized. Dance was divided into classical and character dancing. Although the art of dance was losing its profound content, the poetry of dance was preserved by M. N. Murav’-eva, P. P. Lebedeva, and V. F. Gel’tser.
The Russian ballet theater was revitalized in the second half of the 19th century. The choreographer M. I. Petipa continued within the canonical structure of academic ballet the process of the symphonization of dance begun by the romantics. In the ballets King Candaules (1868, music by Pugni) and La Bayadére, 1877, music by Minkus) he placed great emphasis on the corps de ballet, choreographing numerous ballabili (dances for a great number of people). Petipa’s creative ideas reached their highest fruition following his meeting with the composer Tchaikovsky. Thirteen years after the choreographer W. Reisinger’s unsuccessful staging of Swan Lake in Moscow (1877), Tchaikovsky and Petipa created the ballet The Sleeping Beauty. The musical and choreographic culminations of sym-phonized ballet action—the central adagios and variations of each act—were based on the theme of love conquering evil. Petipa preserved the same principles of ballet dramaturgy in his collaboration with A. K. Glazunov, which produced the ballets Raymonda (1898) and The Seasons (1900). The ballets of Pugni, Minkus, Tchaikovsky, and Glazunov represented the culmination of symphonic ballets in the 19th century.
L. I. Ivanov’s staging of The Nutcracker (1892) and the lakeside scenes in Swan Lake (1895) marked the turn from academicism. Ivanov, an assistant of Petipa, possessed an innate musical sense, which helped him fully understand Tchaikovsky’s musical images. His symphonic choreography of the dance of the snowflakes in The Nutcracker and his lakeside scenes anticipated the innovative dance imagery that was achieved by 20th-century choreographers. Performers in the ballets of Petipa and Ivanov included E. O. Vazem, E. P. Soko-lova, P. A. Gerdt, and N. G. Legat.
By the beginning of the 20th century, Russian ballet had become the leading influence in the ballet world. The Russian school had stable traditions, and the repertoire included the best productions of the 19th century. On the eve of huge social upheavals, ballet was also in need of a new method and style. A. A. Gorskii and M. Fokine were reformist choreographers who integrated the action, stylistic historical authenticity, and natural movements of ballet. Contrary to the aesthetics of academic ballet, they believed that ballet should be more of a spectacle. The set designer often became more important in a production than the composer. Sets for the ballets of Gorskii and Fokine were designed by K. A. Korovin, A. Ia. Golovin, A. N. Benois, L. S. Bakst, and N. K. Roerich. The reformist choreographers were influenced by I. Duncan, who was the propagandist of free dance.
Gorskii revised Petipa’s ballets and more precisely delineated their plots, for example, Don Quixote (1900), La Bayadére (1907), and Giselle (1907). He also created original choreographic dramas, for example, Godul’s Daughter (based on Hugo’s novel Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1902, music by A. Iu. Simon) and Salammbô (based on Flaubert’s novel, 1910, music by A. F. Arends). Fokine staged one-act ballets in which he successfully represented the artistic styles of past eras; his ballets included Le Pavillon d’ Armide (1907, music by N. N. Cherep-nin), The Egyptian Nights (1908, music by A. S. Arenskii), and Chopiniana (1908, to music by Chopin).
The struggle between the old and the new was reflected within ballet troupes. The classical heritage of the Moscow ballet theater was upheld by E. V. Gel’tser and V. D. Tikhomirov, and that of the St. Petersburg ballet theater by O. I. Preobra-jenska, M. F. Kschessinska, A. Ia. Vaganova, and N. G. Legat. Performers in Gorskii’s ballets included S. V. Fedorova and M. M. Mordkin, and performers in Fokine’s ballets included A. P. Pavlova, T. P. Karsavina, and V. Nijinsky. In spite of different approaches, the Russian ballet theater nevertheless became a center for experimentation in contemporary art.
In 1909, S. P. Diaghilev began organizing Russian ballet tours known as the Russian Seasons in Paris. The first seasons acquainted the audience abroad with the works of, for example, the composer I. Stravinsky and the choreographers Fokine and Nijinsky. Many renowned musicians and artists were thus drawn to the ballet theater. From 1910 through the 1920’s the influence of Russian ballet spread throughout the entire world, contributing to the development of ballet in other countries.
New avenues opened up for Russian ballet after the October Revolution of 1917. Gorskii, who headed the Bolshoi Theater troupe until 1922, staged classical ballets, for example, The Nutcracker (1919), and also new productions, for example, Sten’ka Razin (1918, music by Glazunov) and Immortal Flowers (1922, music by B. V. Asaf’ev). The choreographer K. Ia. Golei-zovskii turned from choreographic miniatures to staging full-length ballets, such as Joseph, the Handsome (1925, music by Vasilenko). In 1927, L. A. Lashchilin and Tikhomirov staged The Red Poppy (or The Red Flower; music by R. G lière), which was a canonical ballet having revolutionary themes.
In the 1920’s the Leningrad ballet was dominated by F. V. Lopukhov. He both preserved the old ballet forms and experimented with new ones. He staged the dance symphony Majesty of the Universe to Beethoven’s Fourth Symphony (1923) and the first ballet about the Revolution, The Red Whirlwind (1924, music by V. M. Deshevov). In treating historical themes and poeticizing the people’s revolutionary heroism, Goleizovskii and Lopukhov gave new life to the forms of expression in ballet. Ballet was enriched by colorful folk rituals and games and acrobatic and sports movements. The innovations of Goleizovskii and Lopukhov were also adopted.
In the 1920’s the leading performers in Moscow included E. V. Gel’tser, V. V. Kriger, M. R. Reizen, and L. A. Zhukov, and the leading performers in Leningrad included E. P. Gerdt, E. M. Liukom, O. P. Mungalova, V. A. Semenov, and B. V. Shavrov. By 1930, graduates of the Soviet school of ballet were performing; they included M. T. Semenova, G. S. Ulanova, N. M. Dudinskaia, and O. V. Lepeshinskaia. Male dance was developed by A. N. Ermolaev, V. M. Chabukiani, K. M. Ser-geev, M. M. Gabovich, and A. M. Messerer. Ermolaev and Chabukiani created heroic characters, and Ulanova and Ser-geev revealed the psychological complexity of characters in roles that ranged from lyrical to tragic. The corps de ballet became an active means of expressing the mood of the masses. During the 1930’s ballet was enriched by the national heroic spirit and a synthesis of the forms of classical dance and national character dance; this was evident in choreographic productions by V. I. Vainonen, for example, The Flames of Paris (1932, music by Asaf’ev), and by Chabukiani, for example, Heart of the Hills (1938, music by A. M. Balanchivadze).
During the 1930’s and 1940’s the leading style became that of the choreographic drama, as exemplified in The Fountain of Bakhchisarai (1934, music by Asaf’ev, choreography by R. V. Zakharov) and Romeo and Juliet (1940, music by Prokofiev, choreography by L. M. Lavrovskii). In these works, music, dance, pantomime, and stage sets were all subordinate to the dramaturgy, which was based on themes of history or classical literature.
During the 1930’s, 17 new ballet troupes were organized in the RSFSR. They performed in Moscow at the K. S. Stanislavsky and V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko Music Theater (choreographers included N. S. Kholfin and V. P. Burmeister) and in Leningrad at the Malyi Opera Theater (known since 1964 as the Malyi Theater of Opera and Ballet; choreographers included Lopukhov, Lavrovskii, V. A. Varkovitskii, and B. A. Fenster). Music theaters with ballet troupes and later with ballet studios and schools were organized in Voronezh, Gorky, Kazan, Kuibyshev, Perm’, Saratov, Ufa, and Sverdlovsk (founded in the mid-1920’s). During the 1940’s and 1950’s theaters were also established in Novosibirsk, Cheliabinsk, Petrozavodsk, Syktyvkar, Ulan-Ude, and other cities.
Important ballets were staged for the first time in the theaters of the autonomous republics; these ballets included The Crane Song (1944, Ufa, music by L. B. Stepanov, choreography by N. A. Anisimova), Shurale (1945, Kazan, music by F. Z. Iarul-lin, choreography by L. A. Zhukov and G. Kh. Tagirov), and Angara the Beauty (1959, Ulan-Ude, music by L. K. Knipper, choreography by M. S. Zaslavskii). (See the sections “Theater” and “Music” in the articles on the autonomous republics of the RSFSR and also the articles on the theaters of opera and ballet in the republics.) Russian classics were performed in all the republics, as well as ballets on national subjects and themes.
During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), the leading masters of the Moscow and Leningrad theaters worked in the outlying areas of the country, which contributed to the growth of local ballet troupes. Soon after the war, Burmeister staged the patriotic ballets Tat’iana (1947, music by A. A. Krein) and Shore of Happiness (also known as The Happy Coast, 1948, music by A. Spadavecchia).
In the 1940’s and 1950’s ballets based on literary works continued to be created; Zakharov staged The Bronze Horseman (based on the work by Pushkin, 1949, music by Glière), and Fenster staged Taras Bulba (based on the work by Gogol, 1955, music by V. P. Solov’ev-Sedoi).
National ballets were staged by the ballet troupes of the opera theaters of the RSFSR, including Gayane (1942, music by A. I. Khachaturian, choreography by Anisimova) and Shurale (1950, music by Iarullin, choreography by L. V. Iakobson, [Yakobson]).
Talented choreographers who began their careers in the late 1950’s based their choreography of the music itself. In 1957, Iu. N. Grigorovich choreographed a new version of The Stone Flower (music by Prokofiev), in which the action is dependent upon the philosophic and poetical content of the music. Grigorovich also choreographed The Legend of Love (1961, music by A. D. Melikov) and Spartacus (1968, music by Khachaturian); earlier versions of Spartacus had been choreographed by Iakobson in Leningrad in 1956 and by I. A. Moiseev in Moscow in 1958. In addition, Grigorovich choreographed new versions of Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker (1956), Swan Lake (1970), and Sleeping Beauty (1973).
I. D. Bel’skii’s choreography has a firm musical and choreographic base. He has staged The Shore of Hope (1959, music by A. P. Petrov), The Little Humpbacked Horse (1963, music by R. K. Shchedrin), and Icarus (1974, Leningrad, music by S. M. Slonimskii); an earlier version of Icarus was choreographed by V. V. Vasil’ev and performed in Moscow in 1971. Bel’skii has also experimented with the theatricalization of D. D. Shostakovich’s music in Leningrad Symphony (Seventh Symphony, 1961) and Eleventh Symphony (1966).
A wide range of creative experimentation characterized the work of Iakobson, who began his career in the 1930’s. Iakobson staged the choreographic narrative poem The Twelve (1964, music by B. I. Tishchenko), the ballet Land of Miracles (1967, music by I.I. Shvarts), and miniature ballets to music by Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, A. Berg, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. Alternating lyricism and grotesqueness, tragedy and satire, and fantasy and reality, he has enriched contemporary dance.
The choreographers N. D. Kasatkina and V. Iu. Vasilev have creatively realized images of modern life in dance in Heroic Poem (1964, music by N. N. Karetnikov). They have also choreographed The Creation (1971, music by A. P. Petrov).
The choreographer O. M. Vinogradov debuted in Novosibirsk with his versions of Cinderella and Romeo and Juliet (1964–65, music by Prokofiev). In Moscow and Leningrad he choreographed modern ballets on national themes, including Asel’ (1966, music by V. A. Vlasov), The Mountain Girl (1968, music by M. M. Kazhlaev), and Iaroslavna (1974, music by Tishchenko).
In the 1950’s and 1960’s new ballet performers emerged, including M. M. Plisetskaia, R. S. Struchkova, I. A. Kolpakova, A. I. Osipenko, Iu. T. Zhdanov, N. B. Fadeechev, A. A. Makarov, B. Ia. Bregvadze, E. S. Maksimova (Maximova), N. I. Bess-mertnova, N. I. Sorokina, V. V. Vasil’ev, M. L. Lavrovskii, M. E. Liepa, G. T. Komleva, A. I. Sizova, Iu. V. Solov’ev, A. V. Gridin, and N. A. Dolgushin. Their creative work has resulted in new progress for Russian ballet.
In 1975 ballet troupes were performing in all the 42 musical theaters of the RSFSR. Dancers are trained at six choreographic schools, including the Moscow Choreographic School, the A. Ia. Vaganova Leningrad Choreographic School, and schools in other cities of the RSFSR, of which the largest is in Perm’. Choreographers are trained at the A. V. Lunacharskii State Institute of Theatrical Arts in Moscow and the N. A. Rim-sky-Korsakov Leningrad Conservatory.
Ballet in the RSFSR is characterized by its ideological content and depth and by its clearly expressed humanistic orientation. Since the 1950’s, many ballet troupes have successfully toured outside the USSR. Experienced choreographers and teachers visit different countries to stage productions and participate in the organization of national choreographic schools. Ballet dancers from many countries study at the choreographic schools of the RSFSR and perform for the first time in the republic’s best theaters. Soviet Russian ballet has become a world leader in ballet and has exerted a tremendous influence on the development of international ballet.


Pleshcheev, A. Nash balet (1673–1899), 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1899.
Borisoglebskii, M. V. (Compiler). Materialy po istorii russkogo baleta, vols. 1–2. Leningrad, 1938–39.
Krasovskaia, V. Russkii baletnyi teatr ot vozniknoveniia do serediny XIX v. Leningrad-Moscow, 1958.
Krasovskaia, V. Russkii baletnyi teatr vtoroi poloviny XIX veka. Leningrad-Moscow, 1963.
Krasovskaia, V. Russkii baletnyi teatr nachala XX v., parts 1–2. [Leningrad, 1971–72.]
Slonimskii, Iu. Didlo. Leningrad-Moscow, 1958.
Slonimskii, Iu. M aster a baleta. Leningrad, 1937.
Slonimskii, Iu. Sovetskii balet. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Slonimskii, Iu. P. I. Chaikovskii i baletnyi teatr ego vremeni. Moscow, 1956.
El’iash, N. Pushkin i baletnyi teatr. Moscow, 1970.
M. Petipa: Pis’ma, materialy, vospominaniia. Leningrad, 1971. (Articles and introduction by Iu. Slonimskii.)


Theatrical art was originally associated with work and pagan rituals. Dramatic action and dialogue, for example, first appeared in such folk games as “flax,” “sowing the millet,” and “Father Superior.” The first theatrical performers were skomorokhi (itinerant performers); they are mentioned in Nestor’s Primary Chronicle and are depicted in the frescoes of Kiev’s Cathedral of St. Sophia, dating from the 11th century. The art of the skomorokhi flourished in the 16th and the first half of the 17th century. Puppet shows were widespread. Public entertainment was very popular from the 17th through 19th centuries. The main character of the Russian folk theater was Petrushka.

The religious theater and morality plays developed in the 16th century. The most widespread dramatic presentations were The Fiery Furnace, Jesus on the Donkey, and The Washing of the Feet. The Russian religious theater, however, did not become popular. In 1672 the first court theater was created during the reign of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, and its repertoire included plays on biblical subjects. In 1676, after the tsar’s death, the theater was closed. In 1702, Peter I ordered that a state theater be reopened in Moscow. The Comedy Chamber, which could hold several hundred people, was built on Red Square, and the German troupe of J. Kunst was invited to perform.

In the 1670’s and 1680’s a Russian scholastic theater developed at the Slavic, Greek, and Latin Academy in Moscow; the major poet and playwright of the theater was Simeon Polotskii. In the early 18th century the scholastic theater celebrated the military victories of Peter I and expressed ideas about strengthening the Russian state and developing education; one of its outstanding works was the tragicomedy by Feofan Prokopo-vich Vladimir, Prince and Ruler of the Slavic Russian Lands (staged 1705).

Foreign troupes first performed in Russia in the 1730’s and 1740’s; they included various troupes from Italy, F. Neuber’s German theater, and the French dramatic theater. In 1752, F. G. Volkov’s amateur troupe was invited to St. Petersburg from Yaroslavl, and its most talented actors were sent for training to the gentry’s cadet corps. In 1756, Empress Elizaveta instructed the Senate “to institute a Russian theater for the presentation of tragedy and comedy.” The new theater was basically composed of actors from Volkov’s troupe, including I. A. Dmitrievskii and Ia. D. Shumskii, and its repertoire included tragedies by A. P. Sumarokov.

Of great importance to the Russian stage were the satirical comedies of D. I. Fonvizin (The Minor, staged 1782) and V. V. Kapnist (The Chicane, staged 1798). These comedies exposed the despotism and tyranny of the feudal monarchy. In 1779 the Russian troupe of the entrepreneur K. Knipper first performed on Tsaritsyn Meadow in St. Petersburg.

In 1757 the University Theater was opened at Moscow University; the Petrovskii Theater, modeled after the University Theater, was established in 1780. In 1824, Moscow’s Malyi Theater was founded. In 1832 the Aleksandrinskii Theater was built in St. Petersburg for a dramatic troupe. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries private gentry serf theaters became widespread and laid the foundations for the Russian provincial theater; the most famous of these were those owned by the Sheremetevs, Iusupovs, and Vorontsovs. The serf performers were as talented as the performers in state theaters, and the productions were just as rich and lavish. Among the best-known serf artists in theatrical history were P. I. Zhemchugova and T. V. Shlykova-Granatova.

The Patriotic War of 1812 generated an upsurge of patriotism in Russian society. The tragedies of V. A. Ozerov were staged with success. Plays by Shakespeare and J. F. Schiller were first staged at this time. The moral and didactic comedies of A. A. Shakhovskii and M. N. Zagoskin occupied an important place in the repertoire, as well as the vaudevilles of N. I. Khmel’nitskii and the satirical comedies of I. A. Krylov. Decembrist romanticism, as exemplified in the works of N. I. Gnedich and P. A. Katenin, greatly influenced the theater. The leading tragic dramatic artists of the early 19th century were A. S. Iakovlev and E. S. Semenova, whose acting moved audiences because of the genuine tragic, passionate, and emotional qualities.

In 1766 the Directorate of Imperial Theaters was created to oversee theatrical work. Theaters were under very strict control during the reactionary years after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising. In 1826 theaters came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Imperial Court. A state monopoly over the theaters, which lasted until 1882, was approved. Control of repertoires was exercised by the secret police; the Third Division of the Imperial Office dealt with the censorship of plays planned for staging. Vaudevilles and melodramas translated from foreign languages, and plays by N. V. Kukol’nik, N. A. Polevoi, and P. G. Obodovskii were staged. V. G. Belinskii, N. V. Gogol, and others opposed these types of productions. They affirmed the need for depicting life’s truths in the theater and for addressing the most important problems of the time.

The best works of Russian drama were staged with great difficulty and often in a form distorted by the censor. Pushkin’s Boris Godunov, for example, was written in 1825 and staged only in 1866, and A. S. Griboedov’s Woe From Wit was written in 1824 and staged only in 1831. For a long time V. Hugo’s dramas and many plays by Shakespeare and Schiller were banned. The staging of Gogol’s The Inspector-General (1836) became a social and theatrical event. In this period the troupe of the Malyi Theater included democratically oriented dramatic artists, headed by P. S. Mochalov and M. S. Shchepkin. The work of these dramatic artists was associated with the formation of two principal currents in the Russian theater—romanticism and realism. Mochalov broke with the aesthetic laws of classicism and established the actor’s freedom of creativity. As an actor, teacher, and theorist of the Russian theater, Shchepkin was instrumental in the development of stage realism and the establishment of its primacy. His principles were further developed by A. E. Martynov, an actor at the Aleksandrinskii Theater. The work of other dramatic artists, including V. N. Asenkova and V. I. Zhivokini, also developed along democratic lines. Another current in the Russian theater was represented by the St. Petersburg tragedian V. A. Karatygin, whose acting was characterized by a grand manner.

The theater was greatly influenced by the social upsurge engendered by the liberation movement that began in the late 1850’s, the country’s rapid economic growth, and the philosophic and publicistic articles of the revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevskii and N. A. Dobroliubov. There was increased interest in Russian drama dealing with contemporary life. Melodrama and vaudeville were superseded by true-life drama and comedy.

The plays of A. N. Ostrovskii heralded a new era in the history of the theater. The Malyi Theater provided the most precise and vivid stagings of these works, which included Don’t Get Into Another Man’s Sledge (1853), Poverty Is No Crime (1854), The Thunderstorm (1859), and A Profitable Post (1863). Ostrovskii gave the Russian stage a vast, realistic national repertoire. He contributed to the development of a galaxy of actors, including P. M. Sadovskii, M. P. Sadovskii, O. O. Sadovskaia, L. P. Kositskaia, S. V. Vasil’ev, and P. V. Vasil’ev, and to the formation of a school of stage acting.

The most striking expression of the libertarian aspirations of the Russian theater was the acting of the tragedienne M. N. Er-molova, whose roles included the title role in Lessing’s Emilia Galotti, Laurencia in Lope de Vega’s Fuente Ovejuna, Katerina in Ostrovskii’s The Thunderstorm, Joan of Arc in Schiller’s Maid of Orleans, and the title role in Schiller’s Mary Stuart. Verisimilitude and subtle psychological analysis characterized the acting of I. V. Samarin and S. V. Shumskii. V. V. Samoilov and M. G. Savina were also brilliant actors. Provincial theaters became very popular in Russia’s large cities. Actors from the provincial stage included P. A. Strepetova, M. T. Ivanov-Ko-zel’skii, V. I. Andreev-Burlak, N. Kh. Rybakov, and M. I. Pisarev. Leading actors of the Russian theater at the turn of the 20th century included G. N. Fedotova, A. I. Iuzhin, K. A. Varlamov, and V. N. Davydov. After the abolition of the monopoly of the imperial theaters in 1882, private theaters were organized, including Moscow’s Korsh Theater, which had a first-class company. A. P. Lenskii, a progressive actor and director of the Malyi Theater, strove to reform the theater and called for high cultural standards for actors.

An outstanding event in the history of the Russian and international stage was the founding of the Moscow Art Theater in 1898 by K. S. Stanislavsky and V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. The theater presented an innovative repertoire and made an original contribution to directing and acting. V. F. Komissar-zhevskaia founded a theater in St. Petersburg in 1904. Known as the Komissarzhevskaia Theater, it was of great social significance, staging plays by M. Gorky and playwrights associated with the Znanie publishing house, for example, S. A. Naidenov.

In the second decade of the 20th century the struggle between the various trends in the theater was exacerbated. V. E. Meyerhold’s work as a director in the Komissarzhevskaia Theater and the Aleksandrinskii Theater was associated with the poetics of symbolism and the principles of the conventional theater. A. Ia. Tairov’s directorial work at the Chamber Theater, which he had organized in 1914, rejected naturalism and frequently approached modernist, antirealistic tendencies. During this period, many experimental theatrical studios were established, including the F. F. Komissarzhevskii Studio (1910), the First Moscow Art Theater Studio (1912), and the E. B. Vakhtangov Studio (1913) in Moscow and the Meyerhold Studio on Borodino Street (1914) in Petrograd.

As a result of the October Revolution of 1917, the Russian theater was reinvigorated and set out on fresh paths of development. A decree of the Council of People’s Commissars in 1917 placed theaters under the jurisdiction of the People’s Commissariat for Education. In 1919 the theater was nationalized by the Council of People’s Commissars’ Decree On the Unification of the Theatrical Arts, signed by V. I. Lenin. The policies of the Communist Party and the Soviet government, which were inspired by Lenin’s ideas on the party spirit and national character of art, assisted the theater in mastering the revolutionary world view. They promoted the gradual formation of socialist realism in the theater, thereby defining the main direction of the theater’s development.

The oldest Russian theaters made the first attempts at attracting the new audience of working people. The classics were reinterpreted and in some instances treated in a manner in “consonance with the revolution.” Reinterpreted classics staged by the Malyi Theater included A. K. Tolstoy’s The Vicegerent (1918) and Gorky’s “The Old Man” (1919). Mayakovsky’s inspirational and outstanding work Mystery-Bouffe (staged by Meyerhold in 1918) was the first political presentation imbued with revolutionary romanticism. This play contributed to the development of the agitational theater, a unique form of which was the mass presentation staged on a street or square.

Very important in the development of the theater were the creative interaction and competition between the older Russian theaters and the reorganized theaters. The older theaters were grouped as academic theaters and included the Malyi Theater, the Moscow Art Theater, and the Aleksandrinskii Theater (now the A. S. Pushkin Leningrad Drama Theater). The newly organized theaters included the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater (1921; later the Vakhtangov Theater), the First Theater of the RSFSR (1920; from 1923 to 1938 the Meyerhold Theater), the Theater of the Revolution (1922; since 1954 the Mayakovsky Theater), and the Moscow City Soviet of Trade Unions Theater (1923; since 1938 the Mossovet Theater) in Moscow, the Bolshoi Drama Theater (1919; now the Gorky Theater) in Leningrad, and the Red Torch Theater (1920, Odessa; since 1932 in Novosibirsk). The first theaters for children were opened between 1918 and 1920. In the second half of the 1920’s theaters of working youth were established; later some of these theaters were reorganized into theaters of the Lenin Komsomol.

In the 1920’s various theaters staged works on contemporary themes. The problem of the relationship between the individual and the masses was innovatively resolved and a new revolutionary and civil war hero was established in the following plays: Seifullina and Pravdukhin’s Virineia (1925, Vakhtangov Theater, directed by A. D. Popov), Bill’-Belotserkovskii’s The Gale (1925, Moscow City Soviet of Trade Unions Theater, directed by E. O. Liubimov-Lanskoi), Trenev’s Liubov’ Iarovaia (1926, Malyi Theater, directed by I. S. Platon and L. M. Prozorovskii), and Ivanov’s Armored Train 14–69(1921, Moscow Art Theater, directed by N. N. Litovtseva and I. Ia. Sudakov under the artistic supervision of Stanislavsky).

At the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers (1934), the principles of socialist realism in literature and art were delineated, primarily in a report and speeches by Gorky. In the 1930’s socialist realism was established as the principal method in the Russian theater and was represented in increasingly profound and different ways.

The Soviet theater, socialist in outlook and national in character, developed amid a lively exchange of creative ideas between leading theatrical figures of various peoples and nations. The international nature of the socialist Soviet theater was more distinctly manifested in the new creative relationships that evolved between the Russian theatrical traditions and the traditions of peoples of the autonomous republics of the RSFSR. Over the course of its long history, the Russian theater acquired extensive experience and firmly based democratic traditions and thus could reliably assist the other peoples of the RSFSR in the development of their theaters. (See the section “Theater” in the articles on the autonomous republics of the RSFSR.) Russian classical dramas and works by Soviet Russian authors were instrumental in the formation of national theaters. Many national theaters were established in the Soviet era.

The range of the repertoire of RSFSR theaters steadily expanded. The theme of constructive labor appeared in the Russian theater in the 1930’s, enjoying an unprecedented development. This theme was presented in various ways in V. V. Mayakovsky’s The Bathhouse and in plays by A. N. Afinoge-nov, V. P. Kataev, and others. Plays by N. F. Pogodin, including Poem of the Ax and My Friend, were important in the Soviet theater and were outstandingly staged by Popov at the Moscow Theater of the Revolution. Plays by V. V. Vishnevskii based on the heroic events of the civil war included The First Cavalry Army (1930, Moscow Theater of the Revolution, directed by A. D. Dikii) and An Optimistic Tragedy (1933, Chamber Theater, directed by Tairov). The socialist reorganization of the villages was described in Kirshon’s Bread (1931, Moscow Art Theater) and Pogodin’s After the Ball (1934, Moscow Theater of the Revolution).

The development of a new world outlook among the Soviet intelligentsia was depicted in Afinogenov’s Fear (Moscow Art Theater and Leningrad Academic Drama Theater, both in 1931) and Leonov’s Skutarevskii (1934, Malyi Theater). Soldiers and commanders of the Soviet Army were the protagonists of Vishnevskii’s The Last Decisive Battle (1931, Meyerhold Theater), Romashov’s Fighters (1934, Malyi Theater), and Simonov’s The Lad From Our Town (1941, Moscow Lenin Komsomol Theater, directed by I. N. Bersenev).

A major achievement of the theater were plays depicting V. I. Lenin; written in 1937 and 1938, these plays included Pogodin’s Man With a Gun (Vakhtangov Theater, with B. V. Shchukin as Lenin, directed by R. N. Simonov; Voronezh Theater, with V. I. Florinskii as Lenin) and Korneichuk’s The Truth (Moscow Theater of the Revolution, with M. M. Shtraukh as Lenin, directed by N. V. Petrov). The development of socialist realism was vividly manifested in the frequent staging of Gorky’s dramas, which met with great success in the 1930’s and 1940’s. These dramas included Egor Bulychov and the Others (1932, Vakhtangov Theater), Smug Citizens (1935, Central Red Army Theater), Enemies (1935, Moscow Art Theater), The Summer People (1939, Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater), and The Barbarians (1941, Malyi Theater).

Outstanding classics of the drama were staged in the 1930’s and 1940’s, including Shakespeare’s Othello (1935, Malyi Theater), Romeo and Juliet (1935, Moscow Theater of the Revolution), and The Taming of the Shrew (1937, Central Red Army Theater), Molière’s Tartuffe (1939, Moscow Art Theater), Chekhov’s The Three Sisters (1940, Moscow Art Theater), and Ostrovskii’s Easy Money (1945, Ermolova Theater).

In the 1930’s, Stanislavsky completed his dramatic system. He and Nemirovich-Danchenko had a decisive influence on the evolution of Soviet stage directing and acting technique and on the leading theatrical figures of the world.

The development of ideological unity helped those working in the theater overcome formalist and naturalist influences and resulted in a fuller expression of their creativity. A distinctive individual style and a definite artistic school rapidly developed in acting. Typical of the various trends in the theater was a striving for social typification and a complete understanding of the ideology of every character and of the work as a whole. This was characteristic of the representatives of the leading realistic traditions, who included artists from the Malyi Theater and the Moscow Art Theater, the writer Shchukin, and artists from the Second Moscow Art Theater. Artists from the Malyi Theater included V. N. Ryzhova, E. D. Turchaninova, A. A. Iablochki-na, V. O. Massalitinova, M. M. Klimov, A. A. Ostuzhev, V. N. Pashennaia, and P. M. Sadovskii, and artists from the Moscow Art Theater included O. L. Knipper-Chekhova, V. I. Kachalov, I. M. Moskvin, L. M. Leonidov, and M. M. Tarkhanov. Shchu-kin’s works developed from the traditions of Vakhtangov: Bersenev, S. G. Birman, and S. V. Giatsintova were among the artists from the Second Moscow Art Theater (organized in 1924 from the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theater). Unique work was done by the Meyerhold Theater and the Moscow Theater of the Revolution. The acting of the leading performers of these theaters, including Shtraukh, M. I. Babanova, I. V. II’-inskii, D. N. Orlov, Iu. S. Glizer, and S. A. Martinson, was characterized by hyperbolic characterizations.

Many new talented Soviet actors emerged in the 1930’s and 1940’s to join the ranks of actors from the older generation. They included E. N. Gogoleva, N. A. Annenkov, and M. I. Tsa-rev from the Malyi Theater, N. P. Khmelev, A. K. Tarasova, K. N. Elanskaia, A. P. Ktorov, A. O. Stepanova, V. G. Dobron-ravov, B. N. Livanov, A. N. Gribov, M. M. Ianshin, and O. N. Androvskaia from the Moscow Art Theater; and V. P. Mar-etskaia, N. D. Mordvinov, and R. Ia. Pliatt from the Moscow Mossovet Theater. The company of the Leningrad Academic Drama Theater, which included the outstanding actors E. P. Korchagina-Aleksandrovskaia, V. A. Michurina-Samoilova, Iu. M. Iur’ev, and I. N. Pevtsov, was complemented by talented younger actors, who included N. K. Cherkasov, N. K. Simonov, A. F. Borisov, and B. A. Babochkin. Substantial contributions to the development of the theater in the autonomous republics were made by the actors V. V. Tkhapsaev, Kh. G. Abzhalilov, G. Ts. Tsydynzhapov, and A. K. Mubariakov.

During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, the theater concentrated on spiritually mobilizing the people to repel fascist aggression. Heroic inspiration and a deep identification with the people were vividly displayed in the staging of Simonov’s Russian People, Leonov’s Invasion, and Korneichuk’s The Front. These plays were the most characteristic works of this period.

After the war, the theater turned to staging works depicting Soviet patriots, participants in the Great Patriotic War: The Young Guard (based on Fadeev’s work, 1947, Moscow Drama Theater, directed by N. P. Okhlopkov), Chirskov’s The Victors (1946, Leningrad Pushkin Drama Theater; 1947, Moscow Art Theater), and Lavrenev’s To Those Who Are at Sea! (1947, Malyi Theater). Plays based on contemporary themes continued to be staged; they included Sofronov’s In One City (1947, Moscow Mossovet Theater) and Chepurin’s Conscience (1950, Central Soviet Army Theater). Satirical comedies staged at this time included D’iakonov’s Wedding With a Dowry (1950, Moscow Theater of Satire) and Korneichuk’s The Snowball Grove (1950, Malyi Theater).

In the 1950’s there was a revival in many theaters in the RSFSR of Mayakovsky’s plays, including The Bathhouse, The Bedbug, and Mystery-Bouffe, and Vishnevskii’s plays, including An Optimistic Tragedy (the A. S. Pushkin Leningrad Drama Theater, directed by G. A. Tovstonogov). Among the most interesting new interpretations of classic works were the productions of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (directed by Okhlopkov), Su-khovo-Kobylin’s The Cause (directed by N. P. Akimov), Ler-montov’s Masquerade (directed by Iu. A. Zavadskii), and L. N. Tolstoy’s The Power of Darkness (directed by B. I. Ravenskikh). These productions attested to a deepened philosophic understanding of the humanist essence of classic works and the theater’s ability to stage these works in a way that was consistent with their stylistic nature.

The best plays staged in the 1950’s and 1960’s were about Lenin, for example, Pogodin’s Third Pathétique (1959, Moscow Art Theater, with B. A. Smirnov as Lenin). Theaters added progressive foreign dramas to their repertoires, which met with great success. Many theaters staged plays by B. Brecht.

The main trend in the theater continued to be the portrayal of the contemporary builder and defender of communism. This central idea was common to many different stage productions in the 1950’s and 1960’s, including Arbuzov’s Irkutsk Story, Shtein’s The Ocean, Rozov’s Good Luck!, Shtok’s Leningrad Prospect, and Soffonov’s The Cook, and to such productions of the early 1970’s as Dvoretskii’s The Man From the Outside and Bokarev’s The Steelworkers. The social and ethical problems encountered by the working class, intimately linked with the social meaning of the socialist scientific and technological revolution, also became very important.

In the late 1950’s and the 1960’s particularly outstanding contributions were made to the development of the theater by, among others, the directors G. A. Tovstonogov, B. I. Raven-skikh, V. N. Pluchek, O. N. Efremov, E. R. Simonov, Iu. P. Liu-bimov, and A. V. Efros and the actors Iu. K. Borisova, K. Iu. Lavrov, I. M. Smoktunovskii, and M. A. Ul’ianov.

A surge of creative activity and the search for new paths of development led to the establishment of new theaters, including the Sovremennik Theater, which was headed by Efremov from 1956 to 1970, and the Moscow Theater of Drama and Comedy on the Taganka, whose company included a group of graduates headed by Liubimov from the Shchukin Theatrical School. Along with the older theaters of the RSFSR, these creative companies express the many trends that naturally develop out of socialist realism, at the same time incorporating all of the best elements from the theater’s past.

Besides Leningrad and Moscow, the major theatrical centers of the RSFSR are Gorky, Kazan, Kuibyshev, Novosibirsk, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, and Yaroslavl, which have experienced companies with rich traditions.

The training of actors, directors, and theater critics is conducted on a wide scale in the RSFSR. The largest institutes are the A. V. Lunacharskii State Institute of Theater Arts and the Leningrad Institute of Theater, Music, and Cinematography, which together with the Institute for the History of Arts conduct extensive research. Among the higher theatrical educational institutions are the V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko School-Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, the M. S. Shchepkin Theatrical School of the Malyi Theater, and the B. V. Shchukin Theatrical School of the Vakhtangov Theater. Technical production assistants are trained at secondary educational institutions and at a special department of the V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko School-Studio.

The RSFSR theater has made enormous contributions to the development of the Soviet theater and to the world theater as well. The idea of creating a people’s revolutionary theater inspired the theater’s leading artists and was reflected in works that were innovative in content and form. As a result of the experience of the Soviet theater, theaters far outside the USSR have developed progressive trends. This is especially evident in the effect that the Stanislavsky method and Stanislavsky’s creative principles have had and continue to have both on the world theater and on the training of actors and directors.

The achievements of the theater of the RSFSR have repeatedly been highly praised during foreign tours and at various festivals. This success is still another confirmation of the broad world response that is unfailingly produced by the Soviet Russian theater.

In 1975 there were 292 drama, musical-drama, and children’s and young people’s theaters in the RSFSR. The All-Russian Theatrical Society was founded in 1883.


Morozov, P. O. Istoriia russkogo teatra do poloviny XVIII stoletiia. St. Petersburg, 1889.
Istoriia sovetskogo teatra, vol. 1 [1917–21]. Leningrad, 1933.
Danilov, S. S. Ocherki po istorii russkogo dramaticheskogo teatra, Moscow-Leningrad, 1948.
Danilov, S. S. Russkii dramaticheskii teatr XIX veka, vol. 1. Leningrad-Moscow, 1957.
Vsevolodskii-Gerngross, V. N. Russkii teatr: Ot istokov do serediny XVIII v. Moscow, 1957.
Vsevolodskii-Gerngross, V. N. Russkii teatr vtoroi poloviny XVIII veka. Moscow, 1960.
Aseev, B. N. Russkii dramaticheskii teatr XVII-XVIII vv. Moscow, 1958.
Ocherki istorii russkogo sovetskogo dramaticheskogo teatra, vols. 1–3. Moscow, 1954–61.
Lunacharskii, A. V. O teatre i dramaturgii, vol. 1. Moscow, 1958. (Articles on the Russian theater.)
Istoriia sovetskogo dramaticheskogo teatra, vols. 1–6. Moscow, 1966–71. (Sections on the theaters of the RSFSR.)
Russkaia khudozhestvennaia kul’tura kontsa XIX-nachala XX vekov (1895–1907), book 1. Moscow, 1968.
Danilov, S. S., and M. G. Portugalova. Russkii dramaticheskii teatr XIX v., vol. 2. Leningrad, 1974.
Circus. The origins of the Russian circus can be traced to the art of the skomorokhi (itinerant performers). These comic actors concealed their intelligence and cleverness under the guise of simplicity and foolishness—clown masks would later serve the same purpose. In 1648 Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich banned performances by the skomorokhi. In the 18th century the traditions of the art of the skomorokhi were continued in show booths at fairs and at public festivals by dedy-zazyvaly (barkers), dedy-raeshniki (rhymers), and clowns. This art, in turn, influenced Russian clown performances, primarily those by A. L. Durov and V. L. Durov.
The tsar and wealthy boyars had jesters, who participated in various presentations. Public performances using trained animals, elephants and bears first appeared in the early 17th century, as well as performances by acrobats and jugglers and athletic competitions. Equestrian exhibitions and competitions became very popular, which led to the development of equestrian circuses. In the 18th century theatricalized horseback carousels and cavalcades were organized.
Professional circuses first performed in Russia in the 18th century; they consisted mainly of foreign artists, many of whom remained to work in the country. Gradually circuses started using Russian performers and training the first generation of professional Russian circus artists. J. Tourniaire brought his troupe to Russia in 1824. From 1827 he performed in St. Petersburg in Russia’s first permanent circus, which he built on the Fontanka River; this circus was soon bought by the Directorate of Imperial Theaters. In 1849 a permanent imperial circus was opened in a stone building built on the site of the former Tourniaire circus. A class for the training of circus performers was created at the St. Petersburg Theatrical School.
The first permanent circus in Moscow was built on Petrovka Street in 1853 by V. N. Novosil’tsev. The circuses in the Russian provinces belonged to landowners and later to entrepreneurs.
A new phase in the development of the circus began with the brothers A. A. Nikitin, D. A. Nikitin, and P. A. Nikitin. They were street performers who first performed in show booths and later became well-known circus artists. In 1873 the Nikitins opened the first Russian circus in Penza and went on to open permanent circuses in other cities, including one in Moscow in 1911. The Nikitins attracted many Russian performers who had previously performed primarily on squares and in show booths.
Despite persecution by the police and censors, satirical clown performances became established in the circus. Particularly popular were the clown-satirists A. L. Durov, V. L. Durov, Bim-Bom (I. S. Radunskii and M. A. Stanevskii), and V. E. Lazaren-ko. V. L. Durov was also a naturalist who transferred the results of his experiments with animals to the circus arena. The circus consistently affirmed the image of a handsome and strong man who overcomes seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Russian wrestlers who participated in circus championships and became internationally famous included I. M. Poddubnyi, I. M. Zaikin, and I. V. Shemiakin. Russian riders, acrobats, gymnasts, jugglers, and tightrope walkers were extremely successful both at home and on foreign tours. At the turn of the 20th century, alongside positive trends, Russian circus performances were characterized by negative qualities that reflected the overall condition of bourgeois culture. The pantomimes staged at this time were sometimes chauvinistic, supported colonialist ideas, and extolled the bourgeois way of life.
After the October Revolution of 1917, the circus, like all Soviet art, became both an entertainment and educational medium. In 1919, Lenin signed the Council of People’s Commissars’ Decree On the Unification of the Theatrical Arts. A special section of this decree referred to the democratic nature of the circus and the need for raising the artistic level of circus programs. In 1922 the Central Administration for State Circuses was created, which proceeded to unify all existing circuses. Emphasis was placed on the creation of topical performances and new clown masks, and the crudity and vulgarity that characterized the bourgeois circus was renounced.
Soviet clowns that have used contemporary themes and have retained the buffoonery characteristic of the circus in their masks and techniques have included V. L. Durov, V. E. Lazar-enko, D. S. Al’perov, M. I. Kaliadin, S. M. Rotmistrov, N. L. Lavrov, L. G. Engibarov, M. N. Rumiantsev (Karandash—in English, Pencil), K. A. Berman, O. K. Popov, Iu. V. Nikulin, M. I. Shuidin, and A. N. Nikolaev. Productions that have been staged with revolutionary-heroic themes include those based on Mass’ Makhno Movement, Mayakovsky’s Moscow Is Burning, Afinogenov and Burskii’s Three of Ours, and Kulidzhanov, Mestechkin, and Nikulin’s Carnival in Cuba.
The Soviet circus has firmly renounced any acts that debase human dignity and deliberately emphasize danger and that are devoid of beauty and tastelessly staged. It continues the best traditions of democratic art and creates outstanding works in all genres, substantially developing the genres. It utilizes the latest achievements of science, technology, and sports. Original companies that are very successful include the Circus on Ice, Circus on Water, and Circus on the Stage. National circus acts that have been created include the Dagestani Ropewalkers, Ossetian Trick Riders, and the Iuva Tightrope Walkers and Jugglers. Attractions that resemble the Russian games of strength (performances by N. G. Zherebtsov) and Russian public festivals (directors V. N. Beliakov, A. N. Bondarev) are staged. The traditions of combining clown performances with trained animal acts are continued by representatives of the Durov circus dynasty.
Circus performers have demonstrated their talent in almost all countries outside the USSR. Performers from all over the world have appeared in the RSFSR, including those from the USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, India, Italy, China, Mexico, Poland, the Federal Republic of Germany, and France.
Circus performers are trained in Moscow at the State School of Circus and Estrada Art, which was founded in 1926.


Kuznetsov, E. Arena i liudi sovetskogo tsirka. Leningrad-Moscow, 1947.
Kuznetsov, E. Tsirk, 2nd ed. Moscow-Leningrad, 1971.
Dmitriev, Iu. Russkii tsirk. Moscow, 1953.
Dmitriev, Iu. Sovetskii tsirk. Moscow, 1963.
Dmitriev, Iu. Sovetskii tsirk segodnia. Moscow, 1968.
Estrada. The Russian estrada (variety stage) originated with the skomorokhi (itinerant performers), who included singers, musicians, performers of satiric skits, sound imitators, puppeteers, and magicians. In the 17th and early 18th centuries, divertissements consisting primarily of singing and dancing were an inserted part of opéra ballets and dramatic presentations. These divertissements were not related to the main theme of the production and later became separate concert acts.
Major opera, ballet, and dramatic artists performed in divertissements. Short stories, poetry, and monologues were presented in concert by M. S. Shchepkin, P. S. Mochalov, P. M. Sa-dovskii, I. F. Gorbunov, M. N. Ermolova, V. N. Davydov, and others. P. I. Bogatyrev and F. I. Chaliapin were among the opera singers who frequently performed in concert. National choruses, including Russian and gypsy choruses, were important in the development of the Russian estrada. The most popular choruses performing on the estrada in the 1860’s included D. A. Agrenev-Slavianskii’s Slavic Choir, I. Molchanov’s chorus, and the gypsy chorus under the direction of I. O. Soko-lov. Chorus soloists who were popular included V. V. Panina, N. V. Plevitskaia, and A. D. Vial’tseva. Accordion player and chastushki (folk ditties, often humorous) singer P. E. Nevskii and kuplety (Russian ballads) singers P. F. Zhukov and N. F. Monakhov were also popular.
In the late 19th century estrada shows were presented at public festivals and in amusement parks. Certain performances were often at the level of social satire. Concerts in which artists from state and private theaters participated were held at clubs and meetings of the privileged classes.
Theaters of the miniature, which became established in the early 20th century, were important in the development of the estrada. The best such theaters were the Bat in Moscow and the Crooked Mirror in St. Petersburg. These theaters staged parodies, short dramatizations, and playlets. The masters of ceremonies N. F. Baliev, K. E. Gibshman, and A. G. Alekseev became famous here.
After the October Revolution of 1917 the very important task arose of removing from the estrada elements of vulgarity and eroticism that had developed in the past. The best democratic traditions and new repertoires came to be used. The Council of People’s Commissars’ Decree On the Unification of the Theatrical Arts (1919) stated that the administrative and artistic requirements established by the agencies of Soviet power in charge of art establishments were also mandatory for the estrada. Estrada artists performed at the front during the Civil War, in workers’ clubs, and at plants and factories. In the 1920’s and 1930’s estrada theaters were opened; they included music halls in Moscow, Leningrad, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov-on-Don, and other cities, and also traveling theaters.
The repertoire of the Soviet estrada incorporated contemporary publicistic and satirical works. Satirical kuplety, monologues, and ditties directed against the enemies of the revolution, philistines, and self-centered individuals were performed by B. S. Borisov, N. P. Smirnov-Sokol’skii, and I. S. Nabatov. Humorous short stories were read by V. Ia. Khenkin, and original puppet acts were presented by S. V. Obraztsov. R. Zelenaia performed in a distinctive style, and songs of different peoples were performed by I. P. Iaunzem.
Literary readings, primarily of classic works of literature and the best works of Soviet prose and poetry, have become established as a separate genre. The major performers in this genre have included A. Ia. Zakushniak, V. N. Iakhontov, A. G. Shvarts, V. N. Aksenov, S. A. Kocharian, D. N. Zhuravlev, V. A. Popova, S. M. Balashov, and Ia. M. Smolenskii. The leading masters of ceremonies have included M. N. Garkavi, A. A. Mendelevich, P. G. Raiskii, and B. S. Brunov, and masters of ceremonies who have worked together have included L. B. Mi-rov and E. P. Darskii (now the duo of Mirov and M. V. Novit-skii), A. I. Shurov and N. N. Rykunin, P. V. Rybakov and V. P. Nechaev, and A. B. Lifshits and A. S. Levenbuk.
Jazz orchestras were organized in the 1920’s and 1930’s under the direction of L. O. Utesov and others. New forms of contemporary Soviet estrada music were developed by these orchestras. Popular estrada singers have included T. S. Tsereteli, K. Dzhaparidze, I. Iur’eva, L. A. Ruslanova, M. N. Bernes, K. I. Shul’zhenko, L. G. Zykina, G. M. Velikanova, E. S. P’ekha, M. V. Kristalinskaia, I. D. Kobzon, and E. A. Khil’.
The choreography of the estrada has been based on sports and folk traditions, which is reflected in the creative work of many dance companies and the artists A. A. Redel’, M. M. Khrustalev, and M. Esambaev. Leading drama, opera, and ballet artists have performed in estrada concerts, including I. V. Il’-inskii, I. A. Liubeznov, B. T. Shtokolov, and M. M. Plisetskaia. The most outstanding performer of the Soviet estrada is A. I. Raikin, who has headed the Leningrad Theater of the Miniature since 1939.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s new theaters were opened, including the Saratov Theater of the Miniature, the Moscow Theater of the Miniature, and music halls in Moscow and Leningrad. The Moscow Theater of the Estrada was opened in 1954. In the 1960’s and 1970’s numerous estrada music groups were created, and pantomime was revived on the estrada by A. A. Elizarov and others. Circus acts, notably of L. G. Engibarov, were developed, and magicians performed with success. Competitions of estrada performers of the RSFSR were held in 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1973.
Estrada peformers are trained by a special division (created in 1961) of the State School of Circus and Estrada Art in Moscow.


Kuznetsov, E. Iz proshlogo russkoi estrady. Moscow, 1958.
Dmitriev, Iu. Estrada i tsirk glazami vliubtennogo. Moscow, 1971.
Voobrazhaemyi kontsert. [Leningrad, 1971.]


The first motion pictures were shown in Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1896. The first Russian film companies were organized in 1908 and included the companies of A. O. Drankov in St. Petersburg and A. A. Khanzhonkov and I. N. Ermol’ev in Moscow. Pioneers in the Russian motion-picture industry drew upon folk songs, literary classics, and Russian history, for example, Sten’ka Razin and the Princess (also known as The Freemen of the Lower Reaches, 1908, directed by B. Romashkov) and The Defense of Sevastopol’ (1911, directed by V. M. Goncharov and A. A. Khanzhonkov). In the period 1911–13 the director and cameraman V. A. Starevich created the world’s first animated puppet cartoons. Scientific and educational films were also made.

By 1914 Russia’s feature films had reached the artistic level of the best Western European and American films. The most outstanding motion pictures included A Nest of Gentry (1915, based on I. S. Turgenev’s work, directed by V. R. Gardin), Natasha Rostova (1915, based on L. N. Tolstoy’s War and Peace, directed by Gardin and Ia. A. Protazanov), The Queen of Spades (1916, based on A. S. Pushkin’s work, directed by Protazanov), and Father Sergii (1918, based on L. N. Tolstoy’s work, directed by Protazanov). These and other motion pictures continued the realistic traditions of Russian literature and the Russian theater. Protazanov and Gardin established psychological realism in motion pictures, and E. F. Bauer developed pictorial-ism in films. Other directors included P. I. Chardynin, A. N. Ur-al’skii, and N. A. Saltykov. The stars of the Russian screen at that time included V. V. Kholodnaia, I. I. Mozzhukhin, V. A. Polonskii, O. I. Preobrazhenskaia, and I. N. Perestiani. Dramatic artists from the theater who contributed to setting the high artistic standards of motion pictures included V. V. Maksi-mov and V. G. Orlova. A new school of cameramen included A. A. Levitskii, E. O. Slavinskii, N. F. Kozlovskii, P. V. Ermo-lov, B. I. Zavelev, P. K. Novitskii, and A. G. Lemberg.

The first documentary films showed the everyday life of the peoples of the East, and newsreels depicted events in Russia. After the February Revolution of 1917 the number of newsreels increased, and feature films had new themes; these films included Long Live Free Rus’! (1917, directed by A. A. Chargo-nin) and Revolutionary (1917, directed by Bauer).

A genuinely new life for the Russian motion-picture industry began after the October Revolution of 1917. V. I. Lenin, the party, and the Soviet government attached great importance to film-making. The administrative agencies of Soviet cinematography were the Moscow and Petrograd motion-picture committees. They did substantial work in organizing film production and distribution. In 1919 a decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR transferred the administration of the photography and cinematography industries to the People’s Commissariat of Education. The All-Russian Photography and Motion-picture Department, which was created in the same year, carried out the nationalization of the motion-picture industry.

Propaganda feature films were first made in this period; they included Congestion (1918, directed by A. P. Panteleev), Uprising (1918, directed by A. E. Razumnyi), Tale of Priest Pankrat, Aunt Domna, and the Miraculous Icon in Kolomna (1918, based on D. Bednyi’s fable, directed by N. F. Preobra-zhenskii), What Were You? (1919, directed by Iu. A. Zhelia-buzhskii), and On the Red Front (1920, directed by L. V. Kuleshov).

State-controlled private film studios made many significant motion pictures, including The Young Lady and the Hooligan (1918, directed by E. O. Slavinskii, screenplay by Mayakovsky, who also participated as an actor in the film) and Polikushka (1919, based on L. N. Tolstoy’s work, directed by A. A. Sanin, with I. M. Moskvin in the leading role).

In addition to directors, cameramen, artists, and actors and actresses of the Russian prerevolutionary motion-picture industry also took part in the creation of the new Soviet motion-picture industry. The first film version of Gorky’s novel The Mother (directed by Razumnyi) appeared in 1920. The film Hammer and Sickle (1921, directed by Gardin) was based on the revolution.

Many new newsreels were produced, including the movie magazine “Kinonedelia” (Film Week, 1918–19). Publicism in the motion-picture industry developed with the first editions of revolutionary newsreels and the full-length documentary film The History of the Civil War (1922, directed by D. Vertov). At Lenin’s initiative, the first scientific films on the introduction of new technology in peat excavation were created in 1920.

In 1922 a decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR transferred the administration of film distribution and production from the All-Russian Photography and Motion-picture Department to Goskino (State Motion-picture Administration). Goskino was an administrative and self-supporting institution that was granted the monopolistic right of distributing films throughout the RSFSR. One of its film studios produced Upward on Wings (1923); this studio became Mosfil’m in 1935. The film studio Mezhrabpom-Rus’ was opened in 1924; its name was changed to Soiuzdetfil’m (Union Children’s Films) in 1936 and to the M. Gorky Central Studio for Children’s and Young People’s Films in 1948.

The first generation of leading Soviet film directors, including S. M. Eisenstein, V. I. Pudovkin, Vertov, Kuleshov, and F. M. Ermler, made innovative films about the revolution. Ei-senstein’s films Strike (1925), Battleship Potemkin (1925), and October (1927) featured profound portrayals of revolutionaries on a large scale and with documentary accuracy. Pudovkin was the first director to use K. S. Stanislavsky’s method. In the films The Mother (1926, based on Gorky’s work), The End of St. Petersburg (1927), and the The Heir to Genghis Khan (1929), he strove to depict the inner world of man caught up in the transformation of life engendered by the revolution. Eisenstein and Pudovkin laid the foundations for the theory of film-making and greatly developed film editing. The Leningrad directors G. M. Kozintsev and L. Z. Trauberg realistically portrayed contemporary life. Their best silent film was about the revolution, The New Babylon (1929). Other motion pictures about the revolution included Palace and Fortress (1924, based on O. Forsh’s novel Clad in Stone, directed by A. V. Ivanovskii), The Forty-First (1927, based on B. A. Lavrenev’s work, directed by Protazanov), and Moscow in October (1927, directed by B. V. Barnet).

Many motion pictures were characterized by a diversity of genres and styles. Those that dealt with contemporary problems of everyday life and socialist construction included Lace (1928) and The Black Sail (1929), both directed by S. I. Iutkevich, Kat’ka’s Reinette Apples (1926), Parisian Cobbler (1928), and Fragment of the Empire (1929), all three directed by Ermler, the satirical comedies The House on the Trubnaia (1928), directed by Barnet, The Tailor From Torzhok (1925) and Don Diego and Pelageia (1928), both directed by Protazanov, and Three Friends and an Invention (1928), directed by A. D. Popov.

Directors whose first motion pictures dealt with contemporary topics included E. V. Cherviakov, I. A. Pyr’ev, M. S. Donskoi, S. D. Vasil’ev, G. N. Vasil’ev, V. M. Petrov, A. G. Ivanov, A. G. Zarkhi, I. E. Kheifits, A. M. Room, and Iu. Ia. Raiz-man. In the second half of the 1920’s film versions were made of many works of classical Russian literature and foreign literature, including The College Registrar (1925, based on Pushkin’s novella The Stationmaster, directed by Zheliabuzhskii), Ranks and People (1929, based on Chekhov’s stories, directed by Protazanov), By the Law (1926, based on Jack London’s story “The Unexpected,” directed by Kuleshov), and The Ghost That Will Not Return (1929, based on Barbusse’s short story “The Meeting That Wasn’t Held,” directed by Room).

Outstanding contributions to the art were made by the cameramen A. D. Golovnia, L. V. Kosmatov, and A. N. Moskvin and the screenwriters N. F. Agadzhanova, N. A. Zarkhi, S. A. Ermolinskii, B. L. Leonidov, O. L. Leonidov, L. V. Nikulin, V. K. Turkin, Iu. N. Tynianov, and V. B. Shklovskii. Pioneers in Soviet animated motion pictures included V. S. Brumberg, Z. S. Brumberg, A. I. Bushkin, A. V. Ivanov, I. P. Ivanov-Vano, Iu. A. Merkulov, A. L. Ptushko, V. G. Suteev, N. P. Khodataev, and M. M. Tsekhanovskii.

The film studio Kul’tkino (Cultural Films) made scientific and educational films. The best documentary films of the second half of the 1920’s included Forward, Soviet! (1926) and One Sixth of the World (1926), both directed by Vertov, Turksib (1929), directed by V. A. Turin, and the documentaries based on archival materials The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty (1927) and The Russia of Nicholas II and Leo Tolstoy (1928), both directed by E. I. Shub.

Socialist realism was successfully introduced into film-making at the same time that the first sound motion pictures were made. Equipment invented by Soviet engineers P. G. Tager and A. F. Shorin was used to film A Pass to Life (1931, directed by N. V. Ekk) and Golden Mountains (1931, directed by Iutkevich). A work of epochal importance in the development of Soviet film-making was Chapaev (1934, directed by S. D. Vasil’ev and G. N. Vasil’ev, with B. A. Babochkin in the role of Chapaev and B. V. Blinov in the role of Furmanov). This folk epic evoked the revolutionary spirit of the past. Today, it continues to have enormous educational value and serves as a model of simplicity and clarity and realistic character portrayals.

The following films were about the revolution: The Outskirts (1933), directed by Barnet, the trilogy The Youth of Maksim (1935), The Return of Maksim (1937), and The Vyborg Side (1939), all three directed by Kozintsev and Trauberg, with B. P. Chirkov in the role of Maksim, We Are From Kronstadt (1936), directed by E. L. Dzigan, Baltic Deputy (1937), directed by Zarkhi and Kheifits, with N. P. Cherkasov in the role of Pole-zhaev, and The Last Night (1937), directed by Raizman.

Motion pictures about Lenin were a major achievement in this period; they included Lenin in October (1937) and Lenin in 1918 (1939), both directed by M. I. Romm, and The Man With a Gun (1938), directed by Iutkevich. Lenin was portrayed by B. V. Shchukin in the first two films and by M. M. Shtraukh in the last film. The film Counterplan (1932, directed by Ermler and Iutkevich) marked the advent of true-to-life and ideologically and artistically mature motion pictures about contemporary times; these motion pictures included Peasants (1935, directed by Ermler), The Party Membership Card (1936, directed by Pyr’ev), A Great Citizen (1938–39, directed by Ermler), Member of the Government (1940, directed by Zarkhi and Kheifits), and Mashen’ka (1942, directed by Raizman).

S. A. Gerasimov’s films about Soviet young people were very successful; among the best were The Courageous Seven (1936), Komsomol’sk (1938), and The Teacher (1939). The Red Army and Navy were depicted in the motion pictures Flyers (1935, directed by Raizman), The Thirteen (1937, directed by Romm), On the Border (1938, directed by Ivanov), Girl From Leningrad (1941, directed by V. V. Eisymont), and Valerii Chkalov (1941, directed by M. K. Kalatozov). Antifascist films were also made, including Professor Mamlock (1938, based on F. Wolff’s play, directed by G. M. Rappaport and A. I. Minkin), Marsh Soldiers (1938, directed by A. V. Macheret), and The Oppenheim Family (1939, based on L. Feuchtwanger’s novel, directed by G. L. Roshal’).

Innovations in Soviet film comedy were very successful. G. V. Aleksandrov directed the musical film comedies Jolly Fellows (1934), The Circus (1936), Volga-Volga (1938), and The Blazing Path (1940). Pyr’ev’s talent as a director was displayed in the musical comedies The Rich Bride (1938), The Tractor Drivers (1939), and The Swine Girl and the Shepherd (1941). The satirical comedies Happiness (1935) and The Wonder-worker (1937) were directed by A. I. Medvedkin. Comedies were also made by K. K. Iudin, for example, A Girl With Personality (1939), and Ivanovskii, for example, Musical Story (1940) and Anton Ivanovich Is Angry (1941). Adventure films included Dzhul’bars (1936, directed by V. A. Shneiderov), The Mistake of Engineer Kochin (1939, directed by Macheret), and Courage (1939, directed by Kalatozov). The films Peter the First (1937–39, directed by V. M. Petrov), Alexander Nevsky (1938, directed by Eisenstein), and Suvorov (1941, directed by Pudov-kin) were significant in developing the patriotism of the people in the prewar years.

Successful motion-picture versions of classical literary works filmed in the 1930’s included The Thunderstorm (1934, directed by Petrov) and The Poor Bride (1937, directed by Protazanov), both based on A. N. Ostrovskii’s plays, and Judas Golovlev (1934, directed by Ivanovskii), based on M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel. Donskoi directed the motion-picture trilogy about Gorky’s life—The Childhood of Gorky (1938), In the World (1939), and My Universities (1940). In 1941, Gerasimov directed Masquerade, which was based on M. Iu. Lermontov’s work.

Children’s films included Captain Grant’s Children (1936, based on J. Verne’s work, directed by V. P. Vainshtok), Lonely White Sail (1937, based on V. P. Kataev’s work, directed by V. G. Legoshin), The Ballad of the Cossack Golota (1937, based on A. P. Gaidar’s work, directed by I. A. Savchenko), and Timur and His Team (1940, based on Gaidar’s work, directed by Razumnyi). Film versions of fairy tales included By a Wave of the Wand (1938, directed by A. A. Rou) and The Golden Key (1939, directed by Ptushko). Animated films included The New Gulliver (1935, directed by Ptushko), The Round Loaf (1937, directed by V. G. Suteev), and Moidodyr (The Washstand; 1939, directed by Ivanov-Vano).

Sound motion pictures contributed to the development of the creative talents of actors and actresses. Screenwriting became very important. The best film scripts of the 1930’s were written by M. Iu. Bleiman, M. V. Bol’shintsov, K. N. Vinogradskaia, E. I. Gabrilovich, G. E. Grebner, O. L. Leonidov, P. A. Pavlen-ko, E. M. Pomeshchikov, L. N. Rakhmanov, B. F. Chirskov, and B. V. Shklovskii. Music became an important means of expression in motion pictures; film scores were composed by D. D. Shostakovich, I. O. Dunaevskii, D. B. Kabalevskii, V. V. Shcherbachev, N. V. Bogoslovskii and other well-known composers. Many songs were popularized by films. Between 1930 and 1935, 176 feature films were made, including 78 sound motion pictures and 98 silent films; between 1936 and 1940, 196 sound motion pictures were made.

Among the popular documentary films released were Three Songs of Lenin (1934), Cheliuskin (1934), We Will Be Like Lenin (1939), Spain (1939), and A Day in the New World (1940). A school of Soviet popular-science films developed, represented by the directors A. M. Zguridi, B. G. Dolin, and others. The news serial “Science and Technology” was made regularly.

During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, the first “Combat Film Collections” were followed by patriotic works that were important in educating and mobilizing the nation; they included Secretary of the Raion Committee (1942, directed by Pyr’ev), She Defends Her Country (1943, directed by Ermler), Two Soldiers (1943, directed by L. D. Lukov), The Front (1943, directed by the Vasil’ev brothers), Zoia (1944, directed by L. O. Arnshtam), Invasion (1945, directed by Room), Prisoner No. 217 (1945, directed by Romm), The Great Turning Point (1945, directed by Ermler), and Native Fields (1945, directed by B. A. Babochkin and A. F. Bosulaev). The theme of the national unity of the Russian state under enemy threat was explored in the historical films Kutuzov (1944, directed by Petrov) and Ivan the Terrible (Part 1, 1945, directed by Eisenstein). Films continued to be made about the Civil War, including They Call Him Sukhe-Bator (1942, directed by Zarkhi and Kheifits) and Kotovskii (1943, directed by A. M. Faintsimmer). The victories of the Soviet people were depicted in the documentary films Berlin (1945), The Defeat of Japan (1945), and Trial by the People (1946). In 1944, Iutkevich directed Liberated France, dealing with the military developments in Western Europe.

The best films of the postwar period were those depicting the glorious heroic exploits of the Soviet people during the war; among these films were The Young Guard (1948, based on A. A. Fadeev’s novel, directed by Gerasimov), Tale of a Real Man (1948, based on B. N. Polevoi’s novella, directed by A. B. Stol-per), and the adventure film The Deed of the Agent (1947, directed by Barnet). Those who returned from the war were portrayed in The Return of Vasilii Bortnikov (1953, directed by Pudovkin) and in the musical films The Legend of the SiberianLand (1948) and The Kuban’ Cossacks (1950), both directed by Pyr’ev.

Donskoi’s poetic film The Rural Schoolmistress (1947) was an outstanding achievement. The films The Russian Question (1948, directed by Romm) and Meeting on the Elbe (1949, directed by Aleksandrov) dealt with the theme of the struggle for peace. Numerous historical and biographical motion pictures were made in the 1940’s, including Glinka (1947), directed by L. O. Arnshtam, and Academician Ivan Pavlov (1949) and Mussorgsky (1950), both directed by Roshal’.

Films of fairy tales included The Stone Flower (1946, based on P. P. Bazhov’s work, directed by Ptushko) and Cinderella (1947, directed by N. N. Kosheverova and M. G. Shapiro). Successful popular-science films included A Tale of Plant Life (1947, directed by M. S. Karostin), Story of a Ring (1949, directed by Dolin), and The Forest Story (1949, directed by Zguridi).

New motion-picture lots were built and old ones were expanded at studios in Moscow and Leningrad in the 1950’s, and film production increased at Lenfil’m and the Central Studio for Children’s and Young People’s Films. The Sverdlovsk Film Studio, founded in 1949, released more feature films. Theater studios for motion-picture actors were opened at Mosfil’m and Lenfil’m. Directors who graduated from the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography have included A. A. Alov, V. P. Basov, S. F. Bondarchuk, V. Ia. Vengerov, L. I. Gaidai, G., N. Daneliia, Iu. P. Egorov, Iu. Iu. Karasik, L. A. Kulidzhanov, V. N. Naumov, S. I. Rostotskii, E. A. Riazanov, S. I. Samsonov, A. A. Saltykov, Ia. A. Segel’, V. N. Skuibin, I. V. Talankin, A. A. Tarkovskii, M. M. Khutsiev, Iu. S. Chuliukin, G. N. Chu-khrai, M. A. Shveitser, and V. M. Shukshin. Other graduates have included the actors and actresses K. Iu. Lavrov, N. V. Mordiukova, I. M. Smoktunovskii, V. V. Tikhonov, and M. A. Ul’ianov and the cameramen G. N. Lavrov, V. V. Monakhov, M. M. Pilikhina, S. P. Urusevskii, and V. I. Iusov.

The motion-picture industry of the 1950’s strove to portray the spiritual life and the activities of the Soviet man—the builder of a communist society—on the screen. The major films of this period were characterized by their civic-mindedness, excellent character portrayals, and depiction of the characters’ inner world; these films included The Big Family (1954, directed by Kheifits), Someone Else’s Relatives (1956, directed by Shveitser), Poem About the Sea (1958, screenplay by Dovzhenko, directed by Iu. I. Solntsev), Communist (1959, directed by Raiz-man), A Simple Story (1960, directed by Egorov), Nine Days of One Year (1962, directed by Romm), The Chairman (1965, directed by Saltykov), Your Contemporary (1968, directed by Raizman), Let’s Live Till Monday (1968, directed by Rostotski-i), By the Lake (1969, directed by Gerasimov), and The Taming of the Flame (1972, directed by D. L. Khrabrovitskii). Comedies filmed during this period included True Friends (1954, directed by Kalatozov), Carnival Night (1956, directed by Riazanov), Look Out for the Car (1966, directed by Riazanov), There’s a Certain Fellow (1964, directed by Shukshin), The Incorrigibles (1959, directed by Chuliukin), and Ivan Vasil’evich Changes His Profession (1973, directed by Gaidai).

Motion pictures about the exploits of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War varied in style but were alike in their humanism and their portrayals of courage and moral purity; among these films were The Cranes Are Flying (1957, directed by Kalatozov), The House Where I Live (1957, directed by Kulidzhanov and Segel’), Ballad of a Soldier (1959, directed by Chukhrai), A Man’s Fate (1959, directed by Bondarchuk), Peace to Him Who Enters (1961, directed by Alov and Naumov), and Tale of Fiery Years (1961, screenplay by Dovzhenko, directed by Solntsev). Other films about the war included My Name Is Ivan (1962, directed by Tarkovskii), The Living and the Dead (1964, directed by Stolper), Liberation (1970–71, directed by Iu. N. Ozerov), The Dawns Here Are Quiet (1972, directed by Rostotskii), Blockade (1974, directed by M. I. Ershov), and They Fought for the Homeland (1975, directed by Bondarchuk).

The character of V. I. Lenin was presented in greater depth in the motion pictures of this period. Lenin was portrayed in different stages of his life and work in the films Stories About Lenin (1958) and Lenin in Poland (1966), both directed by Iutkevich, Blue Notebook (1963), directed by Kulidzhanov, and A Mother’s Heart (1966) and A Mother’s Fidelity (1967), both directed by Donskoi. Outstanding films based on classical works of literature included The Quiet Don (1957–58, based on Sholokhov’s work, directed by Gerasimov), The Idiot (1958, based on Dostoevsky’s work, directed by Pyr’ev), The Brothers Karamazov (1969, based on Dostoevsky’s work, directed by Pyr’ev), War and Peace (1966–67, based on L. N. Tolstoy’s work, directed by Bondarchuk), Uncle Vanya (1970, based on Chekhov’s work, directed by Mikhalkov-Konchalovskii), Othello (1956, directed by Iutkevich), Hamlet (1964, directed by Kozintsev), and King Lear (1970, directed by Kozintsev). Operas and ballets were also filmed at this time.

Animated films have been very successful. They are filmed primarily at the studios of Soiuzmul’tfil’m (All-Union Animated Films), founded in 1936. Documentaries and newsreels are filmed at studios in Moscow, Leningrad, Kuibyshev, Rostov-on-Don, Novosibirsk, and Irkutsk, as well as by newsreel studios in Kazan and the Far East, Northern Caucasus, and Lower Volga Region. Outstanding documentary films include Reason vs. Madness (1960), The First Flight to the Stars (1961), People of the Blue Flame (1961), Lenin’s Three Springs (1964), Katiusha (1964), Ordinary Fascism (1965), and The Great Patriotic War (1965). Other major documentary films are If Your Home Is Dear to You (1967), A Word About a Russian Mother (1967), Loyal Sons of the People (1967), Granada, Granada, My Granada… (1968), There Are Only Girls in the Sky (1968), A Time of Great Tests (1969), The Burning Continent (1972), A Tale of the First Spring (1974), and A Soldier on the March (1975).

News serials include “Pioneer Life” (since 1931), “The News of the Day” (since 1944), “Soviet Sports” (since 1946), “Foreign News Journal” (since 1955), “The Soviet Land” (since 1961), “Soviet Motion Pictures” (since 1965), and “The Soviet Patriot” (since 1967). Soviet Russian popular-science and educational motion pictures of the 1960’s and early 1970’s were greatly influenced by scientific and technological progress, which made it possible to film relevant motion pictures. Directors of the 1960’s and 1970’s have included Zguridi, Dolin, N. V. Grachev, D. A. Bogolepov, N. V. Klushantsev, N. A. Lev-itskii, F. M. Sobolev, F. A. Tiapkin, and V. A. Shneiderov.

Of special importance are popular-science films about Lenin and the October Revolution, including the trilogy Lenin’s Manuscripts (1960), The Party’s Banner (1961), and Lenin: The Last Pages (1963) and A t the Head of the Soviet State (1967) and We Were With Il’ich (1967). More than 500 popular-science newsreels are made annually, including “Science and Technology,” “Construction and Architecture,” and “Agriculture.” Newsreels for children include “I Want to Know Everything,” and film almanacs include “The Horizon” and “The Little Star.”

The motion-picture industry has developed under the positive influence of the decisions of the Communist Party, including the decree issued by the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1972 On Measures for the Further Development of Soviet Cinematography.

In the RSFSR, the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography (founded 1919) trains individuals for careers in the filmmaking industry. In Moscow, Advanced Directing Courses have been given since 1956 and Advanced Screenwriting Courses since 1966. The Leningrad Institute of Film Engineers was opened in 1930. There are motion-picture technicums in Leningrad, Rostov-on-Don, Kazan, Voronezh, and Zagorsk. Research is carried out by subdepartments of the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography, the Leningrad Institute of Film Engineers, the Institute of the Theory and History of Motion Pictures (founded 1974), and the Scientific Research Institute for Cinematography and Photography (founded 1929) in Moscow. Research in film-making is also done at the Leningrad Institute for Theater, Music, and Cinematography. Gosfil’mofond SSSR (All-Union State Film Fund of the USSR; founded 1948) performs the functions of what is called filmography.

The development of the science of the study of film art has been based on the theoretical works of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Dovzhenko, Vertov, Romm, Gerasimov, Iutkevich, and other outstanding individuals of the Soviet motion-picture industry. The Cinematographers’ Union of the USSR, located in Moscow, has a membership of approximately 3,000 from the RSFSR; it coordinates the film-making work of Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Rostov-on-Don, the Northern Caucasus, the Volga Region, Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East.

Members of the motion-picture industry of the RSFSR greatly assist the film makers of the Union republics; joint film productions are often released. Films have been jointly made with other socialist countries, including Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and Mongolia, as well as with capitalist countries, including Italy, Japan, Sweden, France, and the USA. In 1974 there were 17 film studios in the RSFSR that made feature, documentary, popular-science, and educational films. There were more than 90,000 motion-picture projection units, of which 55,206 were wide-screen units. The RSFSR makes more than 50 percent of the films in the USSR. In 1974, the motion-picture studios released 71 full-length feature films, 180 documentary films, and 92 popular-science films. The Russian motion-picture industry has contributed significantly to the development of the Soviet and international motion-picture industries.


Samoe vazhnoe iz vsekh iskusstv: Lenin o kino (Sb. dokumentov i materialov). Moscow, 1963.
Khanzhonkov, A. Pervye gody russkoi kinematografii. Moscow-Leningrad, 1937.
Sobolev, R. P. Liudi ifil’my russkogo dorevoliutsionnogo kino. Moscow, 1961.
Ginzburg, S. S. Kinematografiia dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii. Moscow, 1963.
Lebedev, N. Ocherk istorii kino SSSR: Nemoe kino [1918–1934], 2nd ed. Moscow, 1965.
Vertov, D. Stat’i, dnevniki, zamysly. Moscow, 1966.
Iurenev, R. Kratkaia istoriia sovetskogo kino. Moscow, 1967.
Istoriia sovetskogo kino, 1917–1931, vol. 1. Moscow, 1969.


Full browser ?