by James Millar
In the wake of the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s, another reconciliation took place, most notably in the area of trade. However, Yugoslavia continued to develop economic ties with western Europe, as witnessed by the hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs who went west for employment as well as by western investment in Yugoslavia. For Belgrade, improved relations with Moscow were but one part of a foreign policy that also looked to the West (despite anti-American rhetoric), China (after a reconciliation in the early 1970s), and the Third World for influence and economic advantages. Soviet leaders in turn realized that the ideological squabble with Belgrade served little purpose.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
The death of Tito in 1980 began the fracturing of a Yugoslav state strained by economic problems and national resentments, and by 1990 the country fragmented. Similarly, the Soviet Union lost its empire in eastern Europe in 1989, and by 1991 the Soviet Union itself dissolved.
The break-up of the two states ironically brought both of them full circle. During the nineteenth century, Russia had been the sole great power supporter of Serbia. Although a “Yugoslavia” continued to exist after 1990, the name denoted a rump state that comprised only Serbia and Montenegro. As the wars in the former Yugoslavia raged, Moscow again served as Belgrade’s principal benefactor, citing historical, religious, and cultural ties. From military aid to peacekeeping in the wake of Slobodan Mlosevic’s failed attempt to promote Serb authority through the brutal suppression of the Albanian Kosovars, Russia had regained an influence in Belgrade that it had not seen since the early days of World War I. See also: BALKAN WARS; COMMUNIST BLOC; COMMUNIST INFORMATION BUREAU; MONTENEGRO, RELATIONS WITH; SERBIA, RELATIONS WITH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Djordjevic, Dimitrije. (1992). “The Yugoslav Phenomenon.” In The Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, ed. Joseph Held. New York: Columbia University Press. Glenny, Misha. (2000). The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers, 1804-1999. New York: Viking Penguin. Hupchick, Dennis P. (2002). The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism. New York: Palgrave. Jelavich, Barbara. (1974). St. Petersburg and Moscow: Tsarist and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1814-1974. Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press. Rothschild, Joseph, and Wingfield, Nancy M. (2000). Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
RICHARD FRUCHT
YURI DANILOVICH
(d. 1325), grand prince of Vladimir and the prince of Moscow who initiated the rivalry for supremacy between Moscow and Tver in northeastern Russia.
1715
YURI VLADIMIROVICH
In 1303 Yuri succeeded his father Daniel Yaroslavich to Moscow. After Grand Prince Andrei Alexandrovich of Vladimir died in 1304, Yuri challenged Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver for the grand princely throne. He visited Khan Tokhta in Saray, intending to buy the patent for Vladimir with gifts, but Mkhail won. Because Yuri rejected the decision, Mikhail attacked Moscow unsuccessfully in 1305 and 1308. His son Dmitry also marched against Yuri, but Metropolitan Peter, who supported Moscow, stopped him. The Novgorodians also preferred Yuri and invited him in 1314 to be their prince. Mikhail, however, repossessed the town in Yuri’s absence in 1316 when Yuri visited the Golden Horde. On that occasion the khan gave him the patent for Vladimir. He returned home with Tatar troops to consolidate his rule, but, when he attacked Mikhail in 1318, the latter defeated him. To resolve the stalemate, they rode to Saray for a judgment. Khan Uzbek appointed Yuri grand prince once again and had Mikhail put to death. In 1322, while Yuri helped defend Novgorod against the Germans, Mikhail’s successor and son Dmitry persuaded the khan, with the usual bribes, to give him Vladimir. After Yuri assisted the Novgorodians by building a fortress on the river Neva and by capturing Ustyug on the Northern Dvina, he traveled to Saray to challenge Dmitry’s appointment. On November 21, 1325, Dmitry murdered Yuri at the Golden Horde to avenge his father’s death. See also: DANIEL, METROPOLITAN; DMITRY MIKHAILOVICH; GOLDEN HORDE; GRAND PRINCE; MOSCOW; MUSCOVY; NOVGOROD THE GREAT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fennell, John L. I. (1968). The Emergence of Moscow, 1304-1359. London: Secker and Warburg. Martin, Janet. (1995). Medieval Russia., 980-1584. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MARTIN DIMNIK
1125 Yuri moved his capital from the older Rostov to Suzdal, probably to gain more freedom from the well-established boyar families. He also asserted Suzdalia’s independence from Kiev, which was ruled by his eldest brother Mstislav. In consolidating his rule, he founded new towns and fortified existing ones such as Pereyaslavl Zalessky, Dmitrov, Yurev Polsky, Galich, Zvenigorod, and perhaps Kostroma. He appropriated Moscow from a local boyar. He campaigned against the Volga-Kama Bulgars to gain control of the trade route from the Caspian Sea, and he attempted to assert his influence over Novgorod’s Baltic trade. Yury, who began the tradition of building churches in Suzdalian towns in 1152, is credited with erecting some five churches. After his brother Mstislav died in 1132, he became the champion of the Mono-mashichi against the Mstislavichi (rival dynasties) for control of Kiev. That is, in keeping with the system of lateral succession to Kiev allegedly drawn up by Yaroslav Vladimirovich “the Wise” in his so-called testament, Yuri held that Monomakh’s younger sons had prior claims over their nephews, Mstislav’s sons. In his many battles against the latter, he was supported by the princes of Chernigov and the Polovtsy. In 1155, after his elder brother Vyacheslav died in Kiev, Yuri successfully seized the town. However, he was unpopular with the Kievans, and they poisoned him. He died on May 15, 1157. See also: BOYAR; GRAND PRINCE; MSTISLAV; VLADIMIR MONOMAKH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hellie, Richard. (1987). “Yurii Vladimirovich Dolgo-rukii.” The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, 45:73-76. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. Martin, Janet. (1995). Medieval Russia 980-1584. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MARTIN DIMNIK
YURI VLADIMIROVICH
(d. 1157), prince of Suzdalia and grand prince of Kiev; nicknamed “Long-arms” (“Dolgoruky”) probably because he meddled in the affairs of distant Kiev.
Yuri’s father Vladimir Vsevolodovich “Mono-makh” gave him Suzdalia as his patrimony. In
1716
YURI VSEVOLODOVICH
(1189-1238), grand prince of Vladimir on the Klyazma, in northeast Russia, when it was attacked by the Tatars.
In 1211 Yuri’s father Vsevolod Yurevich “Big Nest” had him marry Agafia, daughter of Vsevolod
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
YURI VSEVOLODOVICH
Svyatoslavich “the Red,” grand prince of Kiev and member of the Olgovich dynasty. The alliance would serve both dynasties well. Before his death in 1212, Vsevolod designated Yuri, the second son in seniority, as his successor to Vladimir. Yuri’s elder brother Konstantin challenged his succession and defeated Yuri and his brother Yaroslav at the river Lipitsa in 1216. Konstantin ruled as grand prince until his death in 1218, at which time Yuri reclaimed Vladimir. After 1221 he sent his lieutenants to Novgorod, but the townspeople rejected them. Three years later he attempted to appease the Novgorodians by inviting his brother-in-law Mikhail Vsevolodovich, senior prince of the Olgovich dynasty in Chernigov, to act as his mediator with them. They accepted his offer but his brother Yaroslav objected. Yuri therefore washed his hands of Novgorod affairs in 1226 and turned them over to Yaroslav. Although Yuri was less powerful than his father had been, he took effective military action to stop the Volga Bulgars from attacking Suz-dalia. In 1221 he concluded peace with them. After that, he organized campaigns against the Mordva tribes and, in 1232, subdued them. Moreover, to secure his eastern frontier he built the outpost of Nizhny Novgorod. In February 1238, when the Tatars devastated Vladimir, his wife and sons perished. Later the invaders confronted Yuri and his troops at the river Sit, where he was waiting in vain for Yaroslav to bring reinforcements. On March 4 of that year he fell in ba
ttle. See also: GOLDEN HORDE; GRAND PRINCE; NOVGOROD THE GREAT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dimnik, Martin. (1987). “Yurii (Georgii) Vsevolodovich.” The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. Fennell, John. (1983). The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200-1304. London: Longman.
MARTIN DIMNIK
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
1717
ZADONSHCHINA
Zadonshchina (roughly, The Battle Beyond the Don) is the conventional title for a medieval literary work about the historically important Battle of Kulikovo Field (1380). Written some years after the historical event, in the late fourteenth or possibly the beginning of the fifteenth century, it is attributed in one of the surviving copies to a Sofonia of Ryazan about whom nothing is known. The text is preserved in a longer and a shorter redaction, giving rise to the usual arguments in these cases over which was the “original.” Primacy is important to the crucial question of Zadonshchina’s relationship to the Lay of Igor’s Campaign. The short redaction appears to be an incomplete extract and not the author’s text.
There can be no doubt of a close association with the Lay in view of extensive similarities that go beyond any mutual dependence on some third source or tradition. Zadonshchina was almost certainly written as an imitation of the Lay and a response to it, treating the victory at Kulikovo as revenge for the defeat of Igor at the hands of a different steppe enemy. The writer sought to reverse circumstances of 1185 as described in the Lay, turning Igor’s unsuccessful campaign upside down, so to speak. In the process he distorted history: For example, by exaggerating the unity of the princes in 1380 in order to counterbalance the disunity of 1185. Most of his figures of speech are borrowed from the Lay and often ineptly combined and overused. For these reasons, Zadonshchina is considered derivative and inferior. See also: FOLKLORE; LAY OF IGOR’S CAMPAIGN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jakobson, Roman, and Worth, Dean S., eds. (1963). Sofonija’s Tale of the Russian-Tatar Battle on the Kulikovo Field. The Hague: Mouton. Zenkovsky, Serge A., tr. and ed. (1974). Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, 2d ed. rev. New York: Dutton.
NORMAN W. INGHAM
ZAGOTOVKA
State agricultural procurement.
The term zagotovka refers to the process through which agricultural products (e.g., grain) were pro1719
ZASEKA
cured by the Soviet state, usually from collective farms (kolkhozes) in the form of compulsory deliveries (obyazatelnye postavki) at low prices set by the state. The procurement process was important in that the underpinning of the Soviet strategy of industrialization was the extraction of grain and other agricultural products from the countryside for use as a source of domestic food and as a means to finance industrialization through export. Moreover, beginning under Lenin during the period of War Communism, when forced requisitioning (pro-drazverstka) was introduced, the role of the state in the production, acquisition, and distribution of agricultural products increased, especially after the collectivization of agriculture in the late 1920s.
In addition to the earlier use of forced requisitioning and the subsequent introduction of compulsory deliveries extracted from collective farms, deliveries were also made by state farms (sdacha sovkhozov), payments in kind (naturoplata) were required for the services of the Machine Tractor Stations (MTS), and taxes in kind (prodnalog) were levied.
The mechanisms of procurement introduced by the Soviet state served, in part, to eliminate the market of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s in order to organize the interaction between the agricultural and the industrial (urban) sector. Moreover, as state controls replaced the NEP market, the terms of trade between the countryside and the urban industrial sector could increasingly be dictated by the state. See also: AGRICULTURE; ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOVIET; INDUSTRIALIZATION, SOVIET
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gregory, Paul R., and Stuart, Robert C. (2001). Russian and Soviet Economic Performance and Structure, 7th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Volin, Lazar. (1970). A Century of Russian Agriculture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ROBERT C. STUART ZASEKA See FRONTIER FORTIFICATIONS. 1950 and became a member of the Communist Party in 1954. She completed a doctoral thesis for the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Economics, Department of Agriculture, where she worked until 1963. In that year, Zaslavskaya moved to the Novosibirsk Institute of Industrial Economics to work with Abel Aganbegyan. She subsequently became head of the Institute’s Sociology Department, in 1968. At the same time, Zaslavskaya became a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, becoming a full member in 1981. From the late 1960s she headed the Social Problems department of the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, where she remained until the mid-1980s. During this period, Zaslavskaya developed a model capable of predicting trends in Soviet agriculture.
Zaslavskaya came to prominence in early 1980s, when her Novosibirsk report was leaked to the public. Later on, when Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing his policies of glasnost and perestroika, Zaslavskaya became a key player and senior government adviser in the field of socioeconomic and agricultural reform, from 1985 to 1987. She was elected to the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989 as Russian Academy of Sciences representative. In 1986 Zaslavskaya was elected President of the Soviet Sociological Association, before moving on to head to the new Institute of Sociology in 1987 and the Centre for the Study of Public Opinion (VTs-IOM) in 1988. In 1990 Boris Yeltsin elected Zaslavskaya to his consultative council. Since then Zaslavskaya has gone on to become head of the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. See also: ACADEMY OF SCIENCES; NOVOSIBIRSK REPORT; PERESTROIKA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Yanowitch, Murray, ed. (1989). Voices of Reform: Essays by Tatiana I. Yaslavskaya. Armonk, NY and London: M. E. Sharpe.
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS
ZASLAVSKAYA, TATIANA IVANOVNA
(b. 1927), economist and influential sociologist.
Tatiana Ivanovna Zaslavskaya graduated from the Economics Faculty of Moscow University in
1720
ZASULICH, VERA IVANOVNA
(1849-1919), Russian revolutionary.
Born into a relatively poor noble family, Vera Ivanovna Zasulich became a populist as a young woman. She had a keen sense of social justice, symENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
ZEMSTVO
pathized with the downtrodden and the oppressed, and opposed autocracy. An active participant in the populist movement, she was imprisoned from 1869 to 1871 and was in administrative (internal) exile from 1871 to 1875. She spent most of her life in poverty and poor health, with a bohemian lifestyle. Her partner, Lev Deich, was arrested in 1884 for smuggling revolutionary literature to Russia and was exiled to Siberia, where he remained until 1901. While in Siberia, he married another woman. Za-sulich achieved fame and heroine status for shooting Fyodor Trepov (Governor of St. Petersburg) in 1878, in an assassination attempt (Trepov survived). Acquitted at a jury trial, she fled abroad to escape rearrest and lived in political exile (in Switzerland, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) from 1878 to 1905 (with the exception of two brief returns to Russia for four months in 1879-1880 and for three months in 1899-1900). She corresponded with Karl Marx and was a friend of Friedrich En-gels. She was one of the founders of the first Russian Marxist organization, the Liberation of Labor (Osvobozhdenie truda) group in Geneva in 1883. Author of numerous books, articles, and translations, she was an editor of Iskra (“Spark”) from 1900 to 1905. A participant in the 1903 second congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, she helped found the Menshevik movement and made frequent attempts to reconcile factions of the revolutionary movement. After 1905 Zasulich retired from revolutionary activities. She was in her late fifties, in poor health, and there was an amnesty for political exiles. She subsequently supported Russian participation in World War I. As an old Menshevik and supporter of the war, she natura
lly opposed the October Revolution. See also: ENGELS, FRIEDRICH; MARXISM; MENSHEVIKS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bergman, Jay. (1983). Vera Zasulich. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Shanin, Teodor, ed. (1983). Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and “The Peripheries of Capitalism.” New York: Monthly Review Press.
MICHAEL ELLMAN
of the people by reforming popular religious practices, improving the liturgy, introducing sermons, and strengthening the role of the clergy. The reformers gathered around Stefan Vonifatiev, arch-priest of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin and confessor to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich. Individuals associated with the Zealots included leading figures at court, such as the Boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov and gentrymen (dvoryane) Fyodor Rtishchev and Simeon Potemkin. The head of the Printing Office, Prince Alexei Mkhailovich Lvov, supported the Zealots, as did several of the correctors (spravshchiki), including Mikhail Rogov (arch-priest at the Archangel Cathedral), Ivan Nasedka (priest at the Dormition Cathedral) and Shestak Martemianov (layman). Nikon, archimandrite of the New Savior Monastery in Moscow (patriarch from 1652) was also a participant. Ivan Neronov, a provincial reformer, became archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow in 1649 and took his place among the Zealots of Piety. Other representatives of the provincial secular clergy active in the group included the archpriests Avvakum of Yurev, Daniil of Temnikov, Login of Murom, and Daniil of Kostroma. Traditional historiography opposed the Zealots to Patriarch Iosif and the Church Council, although some historians have questioned this opposition. Nikon, a leading Zealot, became patriarch in 1652, and his actions split the circle. Av-vakum led several members of the group in opposition that ultimately led to schism and the emergence of Old Belief. See also: AVVAKUM PETROVICH; MOROZOV, BORIS IVANOVICH; NERONOV, IVAN; NIKON, PATRIARCH; OLD BELIEVERS; RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
