by James Millar
CUSTINE, ASTOLPHE LOUIS LEONOR
(1790-1857), French writer and publicist.
Astolphe de Custine’s fame rests upon his book Russia in 1839, a voluminous travelogue depicting the empire of Nicholas I in an unfavorable light; it became an oft-quoted precursor to numerous subsequent works of professional “Sovietologists” and “Kremlinologists.” Custine was born into an old aristocratic family; both his father and grandfather were executed during the French Revolution. Originally a staunch political conservative, Custine traveled to Russia determined to provide French readers with the positive image of a functioning monarchy. However, the three months spent in the empire of Tsar Nicholas I-whom he met in person-turned Custine into a constitutionalist. Russia’s despotic, incurably corrupt order that entitled the state to any intrusions into its citizens’ lives shocked the European observer with its innate violence and hypocrisy. Custine particularly faulted
CYRIL AND METHODIUS SOCIETY
the Russian establishment for its quasi-military structure introduced by Peter I. Most astounding among his conclusions was the prediction that Russia would face a revolution of unprecedented scope within the next half century.
When Russia in 1839 was published in four lengthy volumes in 1843, it became an immediate bestseller and was translated into English, German, and Danish. Russian diplomats and secret agents tried their utmost to discredit the book and its author; the tsar himself reportedly had a fit of fury while reading Custine’s elaborations. On the other hand, Alexander Herzen and other dissidents praised Russia in 1839 for its accuracy, and even the chief of Russia’s Third Department conceded that the ungrateful French guest merely said out loud what many Russians secretly were thinking in the first place.
Astolphe de Custine, who also wrote other travelogues and fiction, died in 1857. See also: AUTOCRACY; NICHOLAS I. Although the collection has been repeatedly decimated over time, varying numbers of customs books still exist for fifty cities in European Russia and for most of the Siberian fortress towns, virtually all of them dated between 1626 and 1686. The best-preserved collections of early modern customs data are for the Southern Frontier, the Northern Dvina waterway, and the Siberian fortress towns. In contrast, practically all the information of the key commercial centers of Moscow, Yaroslavl’, Arkhangel’sk, and Novgorod, among others, has been lost.
For the early eighteenth century, customs data pertaining to some 300 towns have survived. Dated from 1714 to 1750, 142 books survive in the collections of the Kamer-kollegia. The most important collections are for Moscow, Northern Russia, and the Southern Frontier. The practice of compiling customs books was discontinued following the abolition of internal customs points in 1754. See also: FOREIGN TRADE; MERCHANTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Custine, Marquis de. (1989). Empire of the Czar: A Journey through Eternal Russia. New York: Doubleday. Grudzinska Gross, Irena. (1991). The Scar of Revolution: Custine, Tocqueville, and the Romantic Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press.
PETER ROLLBERG
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hellie, Richard. (1999). The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
JARMO T. KOTILAINE
CUSTOMS BOOKS
Customs books (tamozhennye knigi) were official registers of customs and other revenues collected at customs offices between the sixteenth and the mid-eighteenth centuries, and often a source of data on expenditures by the customs administration.
Typical entries in a customs book list the quantities and values of the commodities carried by a given merchant. In addition, they usually give the name, rank, origin, and destination of each merchant. Customs records often include separate sections on particular “special” commodities, such as liquor, horses, cattle, grain, or treasury goods.
All Russian towns, as well as many smaller communities, kept records of all trade passing through them. A total of some 190 seventeenth-century customs books have survived to this day.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS SOCIETY
The first Ukrainian political organization in the Russian Empire, the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood existed from late 1845 to early 1847. A secret society with no clear membership criteria, the brotherhood consisted of a core group of some dozen members and a wider circle of an estimated one hundred sympathizers. The society was led by the historian Mykola (Nikolai) Kostomarov, the minor official Mykola Hulak, and the schoolteacher Vasyl Bilozersky. Scholars continue to disagree as to whether the great poet Taras Shevchenko, the most celebrated affiliate of the group, was a formal member. This organization of young Ukrainian patriots was established in Kiev in December 1845 and, during the fourteen months of its existence, its activity was limited to political discussions and the formulation of a program. Kostomarov wrote the society’s most important programmatic statement, “The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian
CYRILLIC ALPHABET
People.” Strongly influenced by Polish Romanticism and Pan-Slavism, this document spoke vaguely of the Christian principles of justice and freedom, but also proposed a number of radical reforms: the abolition of serfdom, the introduction of universal education, and the creation of a democratic federation of all the Slavic peoples with the capital in Kiev. The members of the brotherhood disagreed about priorities and ways of implementing their program. Kostomarov, who stressed the Pan-Slavic ideal, expressed the majority opinion that change could be achieved through education and moral example. Hulak and Shevchenko advocated a violent revolution. Shevchenko, together with the writer Pan-teleimon Kulish, saw the social and national liberation of Ukrainians as the society’s priority. In March 1847 a student informer denounced the society to the authorities, leading to the arrest of all active members. Most of them were subsequently exiled to the Russian provinces, but Hulak received a three-year prison term, while Shevchenko’s poems earned him ten years of forced army service in Central Asia. Soviet historians emphasized the difference between radicals and liberals within the brotherhood, while in post-Soviet Ukraine the group is seen as marking the Ukrainian national movement’s evolution from the cultural stage to a political one. See also: NATIONALITIES POLICIES, TSARIST; UKRAINE AND UKRAINIANS An eighteenth-century carved bone and wood panel with the Cyrillic alphabet. © MASSIMO LISTRI/CORBIS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Luckyj, George S. N. (1991). Young Ukraine: The Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev, 1845-1847. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
SERHY YEKELCHYK
CYRILLIC ALPHABET
Russian and other Slavic languages are written using the Cyrillic alphabet. The letter system has been attributed to Cyril and Methodius, two brothers from Greek Macedonia working as Orthodox missionaries in the ninth century. Cyril invented the Glagolitic (from the word glagoliti, “to speak”) script to represent the sounds they heard spoken among the Slavic peoples. By adapting church rituals to the local tongue, the Orthodox Church became nationalized and more accessible to the masses. Visually, Glagolitic appears symbolic or runic. Later St. Clement of Ohrid, a Bulgarian archbishop who studied under Cyril and Methodius, created a new system based on letters of the Greek alphabet and named his system “Cyrillic,” in honor of the early missionary.
Russian leaders have standardized and streamlined the alphabet on several occasions. In 1710, Peter the Great created a “civil script,” a new typeface that eliminated “redundant” letters. Part of Peter’s campaign to expand printing and literacy, the civil script was designated for all non-church publications. The Bolsheviks made their own orthographic revisions, dropping four letters completely to simplify spelling. As non-Russian lands were incorporated into the Soviet Union, the Communist Party decreed that all non-Russian languages had to be rendered using the Cyrillic alphabet. Following the collapse of the USSR, most successor states seized the opportunity to restore their traditional Latin or Arabic script as a celebration of their national heritage.
CZARTORYSKI, ADAM JERZY
Transli
teration is the process of converting letters from one alphabet to another alphabet system. There are several widely used systems for transliterating Russian into English, including the Library of Congress system, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names system, and the informally named “linguistic system.” Each system offers its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of ease of pronunciation and linguistic accuracy.
This Encyclopedia uses the U.S. Board of Geographic Names system, which is more accessible for non-Russian speakers. For example, it renders the name of the first post-communist president as “Boris Yeltsin,” not “Boris El’tsin.” The composer of the Nutcracker Suite and the 1812 Overture becomes “Peter Tchaikovsky,” not “Piotr Chaikovskii.” See also: BYZANTIUM, INFLUENCE OF; NATIONALITIES POLICIES, SOVIET; PETER I
BIBLIOGRAPY
Gerhart, Genevra. (1974). The Russian’s World: Life and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hughes, Lindsey. (1988). Russia in the Age of Peter the Great. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
ANN E. ROBERTSON
CYRIL OF TUROV
(c. 1130-1182), twelfth-century church writer, bishop.
The facts of Cyril’s (Kirill’s) life and career are disputable, since contemporary sources for both are lacking. Customarily, it is asserted that he was born to a wealthy family in Turov, northwest of Kiev, about 1130 and died not later than 1182; that he was a monk who rose to be bishop of Turov in the late 1160s; and that he wrote letters to Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky about a rival bishop. Cyril’s brief Prolog (Synaxarion) life (translation in Simon Franklin’s Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’), written probably long after his death, is the only “authority” for most of these claims, although it is vague and gives no dates. Whether all of the works attributed to him were his, and whether he was ever in fact a bishop (the texts usually call him simply the “unworthy” or “sinful monk Cyril”) are matters of speculation and scholarly convention.
Tradition credits more extant writings to Cyril of Turov than to any other named person thought to have lived in the Kievan period. They include sermons, parables, and edifying stories. The corpus of texts attributed to Cyril was critically studied and edited in the 1950s by the late philologist Igor Petrovich Yeremin. Simon Franklin considers the “stable core” of the oeuvre to consist of three stories and eight sermons, while various other writings have frequently been added.
The eight sermons, which no doubt are Cyril’s most admired works today, form a cycle for the Easter season stretching from Palm Sunday to the Sunday before Pentecost. Like the famous Sermon on Law and Grace of Hilarion, they are heavily dependent on Byzantine Greek sources and, of course, incorporate many Biblical quotations and paraphrases. The original accomplishment of Cyril was to express all this in a fluent and vigorous Church Slavonic language that makes it fresh and living. Cyril’s style is elaborate and rich in poetic tropes, particularly metaphors. A familiar example is his extended comparison of the resurrection with the coming of spring in the world of nature, where (in the manner of Hilarion) he quickly resolves the metaphors and reveals explicitly the higher meaning for salvation history.
Another typical feature of Cyril’s sermons is the extensive use of dramatic dialogue, very welcome in a church literature otherwise devoid of liturgical drama. Thus the speech of Joseph of Ari-mathaea (with his repeated plea, “Give me body of Christ”) and others in the Sermon for Low Sunday both instruct and convey deep emotion. See also: HILARION; RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Franklin, Simon, tr. and intro. (1991). Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’. Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature, Vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by the Harvard University Press for the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University.
NORMAN W. INGHAM
CZARTORYSKI, ADAM JERZY
(1770-1861), Polish statesman, diplomat, and soldier.
Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski was the scion of an aristocratic Polish family, the son of Prince Adam Kazimierz and Izabella (nee Fleming) Czartoryski.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA, INVASION OF
He fought in the Polish army during the war of the second partition in 1793, after which his father’s estates were confiscated by the Russians. In a last-ditch attempt to salvage his property, Czartoryski’s father sent Adam and his brother Constantine to the Court of St. Petersburg. Summoning all his courage, Czartoryski befriended the grandson of Empress Catherine II, the Grand Duke Alexander, in the spring of 1796. Hoping that Alexander would soon be tsar, Czartoryski filled his friend’s head with ideas about Polish freedom. When Alexander became emperor in 1801, after the murder of his father Paul, he appointed Czartoryski as Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Now one of Tsar Alexander’s trusted advisors, Czartoryski intervened on behalf of the Poles whenever he could, repeatedly advocating the restoration of Poland to its 1772 boundaries, a Russian-English alliance, and the diplomatic recognition of Napoleonic France as a method of deterrence. Deeming Austria and Prussia to be Russia’s main enemies, Czartoryski resigned in protest when the tsar formed an alliance with Prussia. He nevertheless continued to champion Polish independence after Napoleon’s unsuccessful war with Russia, attending the Congress of Vienna (1814) and pleading with British and French statesmen. On May 3, 1815, the Congress of Vienna did establish the so-called Congress Kingdom of Poland, a small state united with Russia but possessing its own army and local self-government. Cruelly, however, Alexander appointed Adam’s brother Constantine as commander-in-chief of the Polish army and shunted Adam aside, never to be called again to government service.
Czartoryski participated in the Polish insurrection of 1830 and 1831, and briefly headed a provisional Polish government. However, the Russians crushed the rebellion, and Czartoryski was sentenced to death. Fleeing to Paris, he set up a political forum for Polish ?migr?s from the H?tel Lambert, where he resided. Only among the Hungarians, in armed revolt against the Habsburg empire in 1848, did the H?tel Lambert group find, and give, support. Many Poles joined the Hungarian army as officers and soldiers. Nevertheless, the Hotel’s influence also faded, along with Czartoryski’s dream of Polish independence in his lifetime. See also: ALEXANDER I; POLAND
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Czartoryski, Adam Jerzy, and Alexander; Gielgud Adam. (1968). Memoirs, Prince Adam Czartoryski and His Correspondence with Alexander I, with Documents Relative to the Prince’s Negotiations with Pitt, Fox, and Brougham, and an Account of his Conversations with Lord Palmerston and Other English Statesmen in London in 1832. Orono, ME: Academic International.
JOHANNA GRANVILLE
CZECHOSLOVAK CORPS See CIVIL WAR OF 1917-1922.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA, INVASION OF
Late in the evening of August 20, 1968, Czechoslovakia was invaded by five of its Warsaw-Pact allies: the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The invasion force, which eventually totaled around half a million soldiers, 6,300 tanks, and 800 airplanes, targeted its entry from the north, northwest, and south to quickly neutralize the outnumbered Czechoslovak army. The immediate objective of the invasion was to prevent any resistance to the seizure of power by collaborators in the Czechoslovak Communist Party (KSC), who had signaled their agreement with Soviet disapproval of First Secretary Alexander Dubcek’s reform program and leadership style. Although it caused the deaths of around 100 civilians and is often credited with putting an end to the “Prague Spring,” the invasion failed in many political and logistical respects, and its larger aims were met only months later by other means.
The possibility of military intervention in Czechoslovakia had been entertained in the Brezhnev Politburo from at least as early as March 1968, only weeks after Dubcek had risen (with Soviet blessing) to the top of the KSC. At first, the majority of Soviet leaders preferred to pressure Dubcek into reimposing censorship over the mass media, silencing critical intellectuals, and removing the bolder reformers within the party. His repeated promises to restore control temporarily prevailed over the d
emands of Polish, East German, and Bulgarian leaders for Soviet-led military action. The Politburo was also restrained by its lack of personal contacts with, and trust in, other Czech and Slovak functionaries, to whom power would have to be entrusted.
By mid-July 1968, Soviet patience with Dubcek had been exhausted, and alternative leaders had
CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RELATIONS WITH
A Czech youth displays a bloodstained flag to Soviet troops sprawled atop a passing tank in Prague, August 21, 1968. © BETTMANN/ CORBIS been identified. Under the cover of war games in and around Czechoslovakia, twenty divisions moved into striking position. After the failure of several last attempts to persuade Dubcek to take the initiative in reversing his reforms, the Politburo concluded on August 17 that military intervention was unavoidable. The Czech and Slovak collaborators, however, botched their bid to seize power, and the invading armies’ overextended supply lines broke down, forcing soldiers to beg for food and water from a hostile populace engaging in highly effective, nonviolent resistance. In Moscow, the Soviet powers decided to bring Dubcek and his closest colleagues to the Kremlin. After three days of talks, a secret protocol was signed that committed the KSC leadership to the restoration of censorship and a purge of the party apparatus and government ministries. Dubcek remained at the helm of the KSC until April 1969, when Moscow-fueled intrigue led to his replacement by the more amenable Gust?v Hus?k. See also: BREZHNEV DOCTRINE; CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RELATIONS WITH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dawisha, Karen. (1984). The Kremlin and the Prague Spring. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kramer, Mark. (1992-1993). “New Sources on the 1968 Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin, 2-3. Williams, Kieran. (1997). The Prague Spring and its Aftermath: Czechoslovak Politics, 1968-1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
