by James Millar
Increasingly severe food-procurement and conscription policies, along with a drought, pushed Tambov peasants into a spontaneous rebellion against the Communist government in August 1920. Seizing the opportunity, Antonov put himself at the head of the rebellion. He organized a territorially-based army divided into regiments, which he recruited from the many local World War I and civil war veterans. Local socialists created a strong network of local committees (STK-soiuz trudovogo krestian’stva, Union of the Working Peasantry) that created an alternative, noncommunist government in the province. While they fought the Communist government, they did have wider plans. Their program (which survives in various versions) called for an end to civil war, the convening of a freely
APPANAGE ERA
elected Constituent Assembly, land to the peasants, and workers’ control of industry.
Initial attempts to suppress this rebellion were failures. The few troops in the province were unreliable, and often went over to the insurgents. By spring 1921 the insurgents controlled much of the countryside, had halted grain procurement, and threatened rail communications through the province. The central government responded with reforms and repression. Forced grain procurement and conscription were curtailed, removing the greatest irritants to the peasantry. The end of the Polish-Russian war enabled the Communist government to move fifty thousand troops to the province, including crack cavalry brigades, automobile detachments, airplanes, and artillery. By the end of July 1921 the insurgency was crushed. Its regiments were run to ground and annihilated by the larger, better-armed Red Army forces. The Cheka rooted out the STKs and shot or exiled thousands of insurgents. Antonov himself remained at large for another year, but died in a Cheka ambush on June 24, 1922. See also: CIVIL WAR OF 1917-1922; GREEN MOVEMENT; SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONARIES; WAR COMMUNISM
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DuGarm, A. Delano. (1997). “Peasant Wars in Tambov Province.” In The Bolsheviks in Russian Society, ed. Vladimir Brovkin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Radkey, Oliver. (1976). The Unknown Civil War in Soviet Russia. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
A. DELANO DUGARM
APPANAGE ERA
Most historians since the nineteenth century- Russian, Soviet, and Western-have used the phrase “appanage era” to designate the period between the collapse of Kievan Russia and the emergence of a centralized Russian state. It is dated from the Mongol conquest of Kievan Russia between 1237 and 1240 to either the accession of Ivan III (1462) or Basil III (1505), or to the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV (1533). It was characterized by the emergence of a multiplicity of independent principalities (udeli or appanages). Princes treated appanage holdings as private property, conveying them to their heirs by wills that divided the lands between all their sons. This practice meant that holdings were increasingly fragmented in each generation. As the principalities were weakened, internal conflict escalated and external attacks came not only from the Mongols, but also from Lithuanians, Germans, Poles, and Swedes. This tumultuous situation ended only as Moscow fashioned an autocracy capable of “gathering the Russian lands.”
In the later twentieth century, a new interpretation of the age emerged. New, broadly based archeological evidence refuted the traditional view that Kiev itself was in economic decline from the mid-twelfth century, and suggested instead a general economic expansion. The new interpretation proposes that the eleven or twelve appanages that developed between 1150 and 1240 represented a rational division of labor and delegation of authority within the Rurikid dynasty, and that they were designed to respond to economic and political expansion. It maintains that the principalities should be understood as components of a dynastic realm, not as private property. As proof, it offers detailed evidence to argue that the frequent wars of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries were fought to defend the principle of lateral succession developed in the Kievan period. It argues at length that this principle continued to underlie succession decisions and legitimacy issues to one degree or another during much of the Mongol period, and remained important as late as the civil wars of the second quarter of the fifteenth century. The interpretation also set a new initial date for the era- the mid 1100s-which has become increasingly accepted by scholars in the field, and a number of new publications since the late 1980s minimize the use of the term “appanage era,” but most still retain much of the traditional interpretation associated with it. See also: KIEVAN RUS; MUSCOVY; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; RURIKID DYNASTY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin, Janet. (1995). Medieval Russia, 980-1584. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Miller, David B. (1986). “The Kievan Principality on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion: An Inquiry into Current Historical Research and Interpretation.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10:215-240. Pipes, Richard. (1974). Russia Under the Old Regime. New York: Scribners.
ELVIRA M. WILBUR
APPARAT
APPARAT
An informal term used to describe a part or the whole of a bureaucratic structure, such as the Communist Party.
The literal translation of apparat is apparatus. The Bolsheviks began as an underground movement, and, to survive, the party machine demanded solidarity and discipline. Members were known as apparatchiki, that is, men of the apparat, or as komitechiki, members of the underground committees. As time passed, the term came to refer to any part, or the whole, of the Soviet bureaucratic system. It was frequently used in later years as a term of denigration and contempt, as was the term apparatchik. See also: COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fainsod, Merle.(1961). How Russia is Ruled. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
JAMES R. MILLAR
as the Provisional Government failed to solve the war, economic, and other issues. Lenin’s April Theses also called for a Bolshevik party congress to revise the party program and to change the party name to communist. Lenin’s ideas initially shocked most Bolsheviks as much as other political leaders, but Lenin soon brought the Bolshevik Party to accept them. The Theses, especially those calling for immediate passage into the next stage of revolution and a soviet-based government, significantly redefined Bolshevism. See also: FEBRUARY REVOLUTION; LENIN, VLADIMIR ILICH; OCTOBER REVOLUTION; PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT; SOVIET
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Harding, Neil. (1981). Lenin’s Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic Revolution. 2 vols. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Harding, Neil. (1996). Leninism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. (1964). “The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution.” In Collected Works, vol. 24. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Service, Robert. (1985-1994). Lenin: A Political Life. 3 vols. London: Macmillan.
REX A. WADE
APRIL THESES
Vladimir Ilich Lenin’s “April Theses” was one of the most influential and important documents of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik history. The main ideas of Lenin’s April Theses were first delivered in speeches immediately after his arrival in Pet-rograd on April 16, 1917, and then formalized in a newspaper article (“The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution”) in the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda on April 20. The Theses refused any support for the Provisional Government, attacked the Petrograd soviet (council) leadership’s policy of cooperation with the Provisional Government, and declared that the soviets should be the basis for a new, revolutionary government. This latter position soon aligned the Bolsheviks with popular sentiment, which by summer was demanding “all power to the soviets,” that is, a government based on the soviets. The Theses also called for immediate radical social and economic reforms and for transforming the international war into civil war. Although Lenin’s theses were too radical for the optimistic and cooperative mood of April, they positioned the Bolsheviks to benefit from the discontentment and disillusionment that summer and fall
ARCHITECTURE
The architecture of medieval Rus, initially influenced by Byzantine architecture, developed a distinct set of styles betwe
en the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. As Moscow established its dominance and as contacts with western European culture increased in the late fifteenth century, Russian motifs began to blend with Western ones. By the eighteenth century the design of Russia’s public buildings followed Western styles. Rapid social change at the turn of the twentieth century and the establishment of Soviet power after 1917 generated new bursts of architectural experimentation.
MEDIEVAL AND MUSCOVITE ARCHITECTURE (C. 1000-1700)
Little is known of pre-Christian architecture among the eastern Slavs, but with the acceptance of Christianity by Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev in 988, the construction of masonry churches spread throughout Rus. The largest and most complex of
ARCHITECTURE
these early churches was Kiev’s Cathedral of Divine Wisdom (1037-1050s), commissioned by Prince Yaroslav the Wise and built with the direction of Greek masters. The interior contained extensive mosaics as well as frescoes. Other major churches of this period include the Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod (1045-1052), the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Chernigov (1031-1050s), and the Cathedral of the Dormition at the Kiev Cave Monastery (1073-1078; destroyed in 1941).
Regardless of size, the churches adhered to a plan known as the “inscribed cross”: a cuboid structure with a dome marking the intersection of the main aisles. The dome was elevated on a cylinder supported by the four main piers. The facades usually culminated in curved gables known as zakomary.
In addition to Kiev, Novgorod, and neighboring cities, the third center of architecture in pre-Mongol Rus was the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, whose limestone churches were distinguished by carved decoration and precision of design. Grand Prince Yury Dolgoruky commissioned the first of these churches, such as the Transfiguration in Pereslavl-Zalessky (1152-1157). His son Andrei Bogolyubsky began the great era of limestone building in this area with the Cathedral of the Dor-mition in Vladimir (1158-1160); his palace church at Bogolyubovo (1158-1165) of which only fragments remain; and the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (1165). His successor, Vsevolod III, enlarged the Dormition Cathedral (1185-1189) and built the Cathedral of St. Dmitry in Vladimir (1194-1197), whose upper tier is covered with elaborate carving representing Biblical and secular motifs.
After the Mongol invasion of 1237-1241, church construction sharply declined; but by the middle of the fourteenth century, masonry construction revived, particularly in Novgorod, with the support of wealthy merchants and neighborhood craft guilds. The Church of St. Theodore Stratilates on the Brook (1360-1361) and the Church of Transfiguration on Elijah Street (1374; frescoes by Theophanes the Greek) exemplified a distinct local style with steeply pitched roofs. Moscow also enjoyed an architectural revival in the construction of limestone churches, but not until the last quarter of the fifteenth century did the major churches of the Kremlin take shape under the direction of Italian masters imported by Ivan III.
During the sixteenth century, Moscow’s brick churches displayed boldly inventive designs, also with Italian influence. The culmination of this period occurs in the most famous of Russian churches, the Intercession on the Moat, popularly known as Basil the Blessed (1555-1561). Built on what later became known as Red Square, in celebration of Ivan IV’s conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan, the structure consists of a central tent tower surrounded by eight tower churches. The latter part of the sixteenth century also witnessed the building of major brick fortresses, most notably the citadel at Smolensk (1595-1602) by Fyodor Kon. With the restoration of order after the Time of Troubles (1605-1612), the building of brick churches occurred on an unprecedented scale, especially during the reign of Alexei (1645-1676).
THE IMPERIAL PERIOD (C. 1700-1917)
The assimilation of Western architectural styles, which had begun in the late seventeenth century, increased radically during the reign of Peter I (1682-1725). In 1703 Peter founded St. Petersburg, which became the Russian capital in 1711. Western European architects Jean Baptiste Le Blond (1679-1719) and Domenico Trezzini (1670-1734) submitted plans for its development. At this stage Petersburg’s architecture owed much to the northern European baroque, particularly in Sweden and Holland. The stuccoed brick walls of the city’s baroque buildings were painted, with white trim for window surrounds and other details. Bar-tolomeo Francesco Rastrelli (1700-1771) defined the high baroque style during the reigns of Anna (1730-1740) and Elizabeth (1741-1762). Among his major projects are the Stroganov Palace (1752-1754), the final version of the Winter Palace (1754-1764), and the Smolny Convent with its Resurrection Cathedral (1748-1764). In addition Rastrelli greatly enlarged the existing imperial palaces at Peterhof (1746-1752) and Tsarskoye Selo (1748-1756).
During the reign of Catherine the Great (1762-1796), imperial architecture moved from the baroque to neoclassicism. With the support of Catherine, a constellation of architects endowed the city during the second half of the eighteenth century with a grandeur inspired by classical Rome. Charles Cameron (ca.1740-1812), the leading proponent of neoclassicism, designed the palace at the imperial estate of Pavlovsk (1780-1796), a gift from Catherine to her son Grand Duke Paul. Andrei Voronikhin (1759-1814) created a still more obvious example of the Roman influence in his Cathedral of the Kazan Mother of God (1801-1811),
71
ARCHITECTURE
with its sweeping colonnade reminiscent of the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome.
The reign of Alexander I (1801-1825) witnessed a new campaign to create an interconnecting system of architectural ensembles and public space throughout the center of Petersburg. The rebuilding of the Admiralty (1806-1823) by An-dreyan Zakharov (1761-1811) reaffirmed that structure and its spire as dominant elements in the city plan. The culmination of the imperial design fell to Carlo Rossi (1776-1849), who created four major ensembles, including the General Staff Building and Arch (1819-1829), facing Palace Square. Neoclassicism in Moscow appeared primarily in houses and other institutions built by the nobility and wealthy merchants. Of particular note are mansions and churches designed by Matvei Kaza-kov (1738-1812).
During the reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855), classical unity in Petersburg yielded to eclectic styles and innovations in construction engineering, both of which are evident in the final version of St. Isaac’s Cathedral (1818-1858) by Auguste Montferrand (1786-1858). Of special significance was the Russo-Byzantine style, supported by Nicholas I and implemented by Constantine Thon (1794-1881), builder of the Great Kremlin Palace (1838-1849). The major work in this style was Ton’s Church of Christ the Redeemer (1837-1883; destroyed in 1931 and rebuilt in the 1990s), created as a memorial to Russian valor in the 1812 war.
By the 1870s there arose a new national style based on decorative elements from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Muscovy as well as on motifs from folk art and traditional wooden architecture. Major examples of the Russian style in Moscow include the Historical Museum (1874-1883), built on the north side of Red Square to a design by Vladimir Shervud (1833-1897); the Moscow City Duma (1890-1892) by Dmitry Chichagov (1835-1894); and the Upper Trading Rows (1889-1893) by Alexander Pomerantsev (1848-1918), assisted by the construction engineer Vladimir Shukhov (1853-1939). In Petersburg the Russian style was used by Alfred Parland (1845-1892) for the Church of the Resurrection of the Savior “on the Blood” (1883-1907).
The “new style,” or style moderne, that arose in Russian architecture at the turn of the century emphasized the innovative use of materials such as glass, iron, and glazed brick in functional yet highly aesthetic designs. The style flourished in Moscow primarily, where its leading practitioner was Fyodor Shekhtel (1859-1926), architect for patrons among Moscow’s entrepreneurial elite, such as the Ryabushinskys. In Petersburg the style moderne appeared primarily in the design of apartment buildings. In contrast to their American contemporaries, Russian architects did not design large buildings with steel frames, but became experts at the use of reinforced concrete construction.
SOVIET ARCHITECTURE (1917-1991)
T
he economic chaos engendered in Russia by World War I proved catastrophic for building activity, and the ensuing revolution and civil war brought architecture to a standstill. With the recovery of the economy in the 1920s, bold new designs-often utopian in concept-brought Russia to the attention of modern architects throughout the world. Constructivism, the most productive modernist movement, included architects such as Moysei Ginzburg (1892-1946), Ilya Golosov (1883-1945), Grigory Barkhin (1880-1969), and the Vesnin brothers: Leonid (1880-1933), Viktor (1882-1950), and Alexander (1883-1959). Their designs, primarily in Moscow, set a standard for functional design in administrative and apartment buildings, as well as social institutions such as workers’ clubs. Another modernist active during the same period, but not a part of Constructivism, was Konstantin Stepanovich Melnikov (1890-1974), known for his bold designs for exposition pavilions and workers’ clubs.
During the 1930s more conservative trends asserted themselves, as designs inspired by classical, Renaissance, and historical models received the party’s approval. After World War II architectural design became still more firmly locked in traditional, often highly ornate eclectic styles, epitomized by the postwar skyscrapers in Moscow and other Soviet cities. After 1953 pressing social needs, particularly in housing, led to a return to func-tionalism, heavily dependent on standardized designs and prefabricated components. With the demise of the communist system in Russia, the revival of private practice in architecture seems likely to change the face of the profession, even as new problems arise in zoning and resource allocation.
WOODEN ARCHITECTURE
Throughout Russian history wood has been used for almost every type of construction, from churches and fortress walls to peasant dwellings and grand
ARCHIVES
country villas. Fire and rot have destroyed most wooden structures from the distant past, and there is no extensive evidence that wooden structures appeared before the late sixteenth century. Yet the basic forms of wooden architecture are presumably rooted in age-old traditions. Remarkable for their construction logic, wooden churches also display elaborate configurations. One example is the Church of the Transfiguration at Kizhi (1714), whose pyramid of recessed levels supports twenty-two cupolas. Although such structures achieved great height, the church interior was usually limited by a much lower ceiling. Log houses also ranged from simple dwellings to large three-story structures peculiar to the far north, with space for the family as well as shelter for livestock during the winter. Wooden housing is still used extensively, not only in the Russian countryside, but also in provincial cities (particularly in Siberia and the Far East), where the houses often have plank siding and carved decorative elements. See also: KIEVAN RUS; MOSCOW; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; ST. PETERSBURG
