Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  After Svyatopolk died in 1113, Monomakh hesitated to occupy Kiev, but the citizens rioted, allegedly forcing him to assume power. He thus preempted the Svyatoslavichi who were higher in seniority. After occupying the throne he issued laws, the so-called “Statute of Vladimir Monomakh,” to alleviate exorbitant interest rates on loans and to stop other abuses. During his twelve-year reign Monomakh continued his campaigns against the Polovtsy, and in 1116 he captured three of their towns on the river Don. He also waged war against the Poles, the Chud, the Lithuanians, and the Volga Bulgars. He devoted much of his energy to consolidating his rule by evicting disloyal princes

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  from their domains and replacing them with his men. Thus, before his death, in addition to Kiev he controlled Pereyaslavl, Smolensk, Suzdalia, Novgorod, Vladimir in Volyn, Turov, and Minsk. Moreover, he hoped to secure his family’s supremacy in Rus by persuading the Kievans to accept his eldest son Mstislav and his heirs as their hereditary dynasty. By doing so, he attempted once again to break the system of lateral succession to Kiev allegedly instituted by Yaroslav the Wise. He died on May 19, 1125. See also: GRAND PRINCE; KIEVAN RUS; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; POLOVTSY; YAROSLAV VLADIMIROVICH

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Dimnik, Martin. (1994). The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1054-1146. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Franklin, Simon, and Shepard, Jonathan. (1996). The Emergence of Rus, 750-1200. London: Longman. Vernadsky, George. (1948). Kievan Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  MARTIN DIMNIK

  VLADIMIR, ST.

  (d. 1015), grand prince, best known for his role in the Christianization of Kievan Rus.

  Sources about Vladimir are scanty, and the most comprehensive one (generally though inaccurately called the Russian Primary Chronicle) is full of spurious material. Still the following cautious sketch of the prince’s career is probably accurate for the most part. Vladimir’s male ancestors, though Scandinavian, had been ruling the largely Slavic-speaking land of Rus for at least two generations by the time of his birth. His grandmother Olga had been baptized, probably in Constantinople at some time during the 950s, but had failed to convince his father Svyatoslav to follow her lead. In 970 Svyatoslav installed Vladimir (perhaps still a child) as his subordinate prince in Novgorod. Two years later Svyatoslav died, leaving Vladimir’s brother Yaropolk to become grand prince. In 976 a power struggle between Yaropolk and a third brother, Oleg, led to Oleg’s death and caused Vladimir to flee Novgorod for Scandinavia. Vladimir returned to Novgorod in 980, presumably with Scandinavian troops, and marched against Yaropolk. In the

  1643

  VLASOV MOVEMENT

  same year he or his advisers ordered the assassination of Yaropolk at a peace conference. Yaropolk’s death left Vladimir in undisputed control of the Kievan realm.

  In the year that he came to power, Vladimir erected several idols in Kiev and allegedly authorized that humans be sacrificed to them. He remained a pagan for roughly the first eight years of his reign, during which time he, like his father, expanded and consolidated his power through a series of wars against neighboring tribes. He also fathered several sons including Boris and Gleb, Russia’s two most important native saints, and Yaroslav the Wise, who would eventually succeed him.

  Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity is described at considerable length in the Primary Chronicle, but many details of this account are dubious. However, as the Chronicle suggests, the prince was probably influenced by missionaries and possibly by memories of his Christian grandmother. Political considerations were also important in his decision to convert. Vladimir’s own baptism was certainly a condition for his final marriage (the one that forced him to annul multiple prior marriages) to Anne, sister of the Byzantine emperor Basil II. There is some controversy over the precise date of this baptism, as well as the location (the Greek city of Cherson, according to the Chronicle, or Kiev). In any case, Vladimir’s personal baptism in 987 or 988 was followed almost immediately by the official Chris-tianization of Rus. After baptism the prince seems to have embarked enthusiastically on a program of destroying pagan temples, building churches, and educating new clergy. The latter two projects were to be vigorously continued by his son Yaroslav.

  Although there were Christians in the Kievan state before Vladimir’s time, the prince’s official conversion of the land marked a historical turning point. As Christians, Vladimir’s successors had a religion in common with their counterparts in the rest of Europe, fostering communication and political alliances. The conversion also stimulated the development of literacy in Kievan Rus and its successor states. The conversion had problematic aspects as well. Vladimir’s decision to adopt the religion from Byzantium rather than Rome would separate Russia culturally from the West in many respects. The schism between the Western and Eastern churches, already underway in Vladimir’s time, became official in 1204 and continues into the early twenty-first century. Moreover, while literate Westerners of all nationalities would communicate with each other freely in Latin for

  1644

  centuries to come, the primary written language of Russia would be Slavic. These factors contributed greatly to the exclusion of Russia (and, to some extent, of Ukraine and Belarus) from many Western European intellectual and cultural developments up to the end of the seventeenth century.

  During the Muscovite period Vladimir was regularly represented as the founder of the Russian state. This practice ended with the death of his last ruling descendant through the male line in 1598. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, his reign was romanticized in poems, paintings, and novels. He may also be the prototype of a folkloric ruler named Vladimir in Russia’s oral epic poetry. See also: CHRISTIANIZATION; KIEVAN RUS; OLGA; PRIMARY CHRONICLE; SAINTS; YAROPOLK I; YAROSLAV VLADI-MIROVICH

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Cross, Samuel Hazzard, and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P., trs. and eds. (1953). The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. Hollingsworth, Paul, tr. (1992). The Hagiography of Kievan Rus’. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University. Obolensky, Dimitri. (1971). The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1043. New York: Praeger. Obolensky, Dimitri. (1989). “Cherson and the Conversion of Rus: An Anti-Revisionist View.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 13:244-256. Poppe, Andrzej. (1976). “The Political Background to the Baptism of Rus’: Byzantine-Russian Relations between 986-989.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30:195-244. Reprinted in his The Rise of Christian Russia (1982). London: Variorum Reprints.

  FRANCIS BUTLER

  VLASOV MOVEMENT

  The Vlasov Movement (Vlasovskoye Dvizhenie), or Russian Liberation Movement, designates the attempt by Soviet citizens in German hands during World War II to create an anti-Stalinist army, nominally led by Lieutenant-General Andrei Andreye-vich Vlasov (1900-1946), to overthrow Stalin. Vlasov gave his name to the movement and died for his role in it. He did not create the situation and had little influence over developments.

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  VODKA

  Vlasov has been interpreted both as a patriotic opponent of Communism and as a treacherous opportunist. The Vlasov movement illustrates the way in which Nazi policy towards the USSR was developed by the competing requirements of ideology and military expediency and the various agencies involved in policy.

  The outbreak of war witnessed popular disaffection within the territories of the USSR. Many opposed to Stalinism hoped that the Germans would come as liberators. Hitler saw the war in racial terms, and his main aim was to acquire living space (Lebensraum).

  A successful commander, Vlasov had impressed Stalin. Having fought his way out of the Kiev encirclement, he was appointed to repulse the German attack on Moscow in December 1941. In March 1942 Vlasov was made deputy commander of the Volkhov front and then commander of the Second Shock Army. For reasons that are still unclear, the Second Shock Army was n
either strengthened nor allowed to withdraw. On June 24, Vlasov ordered the army to disband and was captured three weeks later. As a prisoner-of-war, Vlasov met German officers who argued that Nazi policy could be altered. Relying on his Soviet experience, Vlasov believed that their views had official sanction and agreed to cooperate.

  In December 1942 the Smolensk Declaration was issued by Vlasov in his capacity as head of the so-called Russian Committee, and was aimed at Soviet citizens on the German side of the front. In response, Soviet citizens began to sew badges on their uniforms to indicate their allegiance to the Russian Liberation Army, which in fact did not exist although the declaration referred to it. In the spring of 1943, Vlasov was taken on a tour of the occupied territories and published his Open Letter, which attracted much support among the population. Hitler was opposed to this and ordered Vlasov to be kept under house arrest as there was no intention of authorizing any anti-Stalinist movement. Dabendorf, a camp near Berlin, became the main focus of activity. Mileti Zykov was particularly influential in developing some of the program at Dabendorf. Finally, on September 16, 1944, Vlasov met Heinrich Himmler, who authorized the formation of the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (KONR, Komitet Osvobozh-deniya Narodov Rossii). The Manifesto was published in Prague on November 14, 1944. Two divisions were formed, but Soviet soldiers already serving in the Wehrmacht were not allowed to join. In May 1945, the KONR First Division deserted their German sponsors and fought on the side of the Czech insurgents against SS troops in the city. Vlasov wished to demonstrate his anti-Stalinist credentials to the Allies, but when it became clear that the Americans would not be entering Prague, the First Division was eventually ordered to disband. Vlasov was captured, taken back to Moscow, tried, and hanged as a traitor in August 1946. For many years, mention of Vlasov and the anti-Stalinist opposition was taboo in the USSR. Since the 1980s more material has been published. An attempt to rehabilitate Vlasov and to argue that he had fought against the regime-not the Russian people-was turned down by the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court on November 1, 2001. See also: STALIN, JOSEF VISSARIONOVICH; WORLD WAR II

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Andreyev, Catherine. (1987). Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dallin, Alexander. (1981). German Rule in Russia, 1941-1945: A Study in Occupation Politics, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

  CATHERINE ANDREYEV

  VODKA

  Prior to the twentieth century, the Russian word vino indicated the class of beverages known in English as vodka. The term refers to all alcoholic drinks made from distilling grain. (Confusingly, vino could also mean wine.) The Russian word vodka usually referred to the higher grades of spirits.

  Precisely when spirits appeared in Russia is difficult to discern. Some historians note references to vodka in written chronicles as early as the twelfth century. Others argue that spirits arrived in Russia in the late fourteenth century. One source claims that Livonians and Germans were granted permission to sell aqua vita, or vodka, in certain areas of Moscow in 1578. A commonly held view is that drinks such as present-day vodka spread to Russia only in the sixteenth century when Russians learned the art of distilling grain from the Tatars. The most widely held consensus is that vodka came from the west in the first half of the sixteenth century, but its consumption was initially limited to foreign mercenaries.

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  1645

  VODKA

  From the outset, the government exercised control over the trade in spirits. Beginning in 1544, the state owned and regulated drink shops (kabaki) that distilled and sold vodka in the towns. The Law Code of 1649 extended state control to all the Russian provinces and established a monopoly over production, distribution, and sale of spirits, from which the nobility were exempt. In the mid-sixteenth century, the state began farming out the rights to collect taxes on vodka, and by 1767 liquor tax farming spread throughout the empire as the primary means of extracting revenues from vodka until an excise system was set up in 1863. The excise system, however, made regulation difficult, so in 1892, Minister of Finance Sergei Witte introduced a reformed state monopoly. Except for a brief experiment with prohibition from 1914 to 1925, the state retained a monopoly over the vodka trade until 1989. Throughout most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, liquor taxes comprised between 26 and 33 percent of all state revenues.

  Historically, peasants drank mead, ale, and beer on festive occasions. Since vodka involved distilling, peasant households did not have the equipment, technology, or resources to produce their own. In its quest for revenues, the state expanded commercial production and sale of vodka to the rural population throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With the expansion of the vodka trade, the use of beer was increasingly replaced by vodka as the favored ceremonial drink among the lower classes.

  By the nineteenth century, vodka was the single most important item in lower-class diets. In the villages, peasants drank vodka at church festivals, rites of passage, family celebrations, weddings and funerals, and any special occasions in the life of the rural community. Such ceremonial drinking was as much an obligation as it was a pleasure. Tradition and custom demanded drunkenness on certain occasions, and those failing to respond dishonored themselves before the community. In order to avoid this stigma, families often spent their last pennies, and even sold property, to purchase vodka for an upcoming event. A funeral could not be arranged, a wedding conducted, or a bargain sealed without the required amount of vodka. To be binding, every type of transaction had to conclude with all parties wetting the bargain-sharing a drink of vodka. Custom established firm norms on the amount of vodka to be provided, below which a peasant family could not go without being shamed.

  1646

  Vodka was also a valuable exchange commodity used to maintain networks of patronage and manipulate village politics. Often decisions concerning the levying of taxes, election of officials, or the punishment of offenders depended upon who bought whom how much vodka. A defendant or petitioner could ply village elders with vodka to insure a favorable outcome; this was known as softening up the judge. Once a punishment had been decided upon, the perpetrator often treated the village to vodka in order to win forgiveness and read-mittance into the community. It was also common for the victim to treat the community to vodka, thereby affirming his or her acceptance of the punishment.

  The political and economic uses of vodka were linked in the important village institution of work parties. Seeking to gather as many people as possible to get an urgent task done, such as repairing a road or bridge, building a church, or bringing in the harvest, the host would supply copious amounts of vodka. The provision of drink signaled his respect for the peasants, and they reciprocated by working for respect. Vodka was the reward for their labor, but more importantly, it symbolized the mutuality of the exchange, reinforcing the web of interdependent relationships in the community.

  From the 1890s, as Russia embarked upon a course of modernization, vodka retained its cen-trality in the everyday lives of the working classes. With the beginning of industrialization, millions of peasants entered the urban workforce bringing their traditions with them, especially the practice of wetting the bargain. In the village, sharing a drink of vodka signified an equitable economic arrangement had been made. In the hiring market, former peasants forced potential employers to wet the bargain before they would agree to the terms of employment. The toast was a type of social leveling, forcing employers (at least symbolically) to respect the workers’ dignity and humanity.

  Practices at the workplace centered on drinking vodka strengthened shop solidarities, reinforced hierarchies among workers, and symbolized a rite of passage into the world of real workers. Among male workers in shops, commercial firms, and factories, each new man underwent an initiation rite, which involved obligatory buying and drinking of vodka. Often, a newcomer was not addressed by name but called “Mama’s boy” until he provided th
e whole shop with vodka.

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  VOLKOGONOV, DMITRY ANTONOVICH

  With the accelerated growth of the urban working class during the rapid industrialization of the First Five-Year Plan (1928-1933), the practice of treating with vodka took on greater significance, and in most factories it became nearly impossible for workers to receive training or secure the proper tools without bribing foremen with vodka. It was quite common for skilled workers to demand payment in vodka for training new recruits. As with rural communities, in the factories custom set firm limits on the amount of drink required. So prevalent was the practice of treating, a nationwide survey conducted in 1991 revealed that the workplace was the primary place for imbibing. Moreover, in 1993 average consumption levels were placed at one bottle of vodka for every adult Russian male every two days. See also: ALCOHOLISM; ALCOHOL MONOPOLY; FOOD

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Christian, David. (1990). ’Living Water’: Vodka and Russian Society on the Eve of Emancipation. Oxford: Clarendon. Christian, David, and Smith, R.E.F. (1994). Bread and Salt: A Social and Economic History of Food and Drink in Russia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Herlihy, Patricia. (2002). The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late Imperial Russia. New York: Oxford University Press. Phillips, Laura. (2000). The Bolsheviks and the Bottle: Drink and Worker Culture in St. Petersburg, 1900-1929. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Transchel, Kate. (2000). “Liquid Assets: Vodka and Drinking in Early Soviet Factories.” In The Human Tradition in Modern Russia, ed. William B. Husband. Wilmington, DE: SR Books.